Is Jesus God?

[Notaclue]

Jesus is a manifestation of God.

2Cor.5:20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

For he hath 'made him "to be sin" for us, who knew no sin;' that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


Heb.9:27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time 'without sin ' unto salvation.


shall he appear the second time ' without sin' unto salvation.


Rom.7:18. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not


nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh


Rom.8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,


sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh


Mk.10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

there is none good but one, that is, God.


Rom.1:18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

images resembling mortal man

Deut.4:15. “So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, 16so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,


in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,


1Tim.2:5. For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:

the man Christ Jesus:


Peace.

 

[Yoshua]

4. No. I am saying He is inferior and subordinate to the Father like the bible indicates. I don't believe every JW belief is in error any more than every one of yours or my organization's beliefs are correct.

Hi James,

(Sorry again for my delayed answers.)

Therefore, you are saying that there is no truth with your beliefs, mine and others. In what way does your belief and my belief is in error? How do you explain that?
If your belief is in error, then why do you defend your belief? Why you need to share and explain your belief to others? I don’t see any logic about that.

6. This explains the action the pre-incarnate Christ took to indicate He did not want to be equal to His Father. This supports the fact He was not equal in rank and status to His Father. If someone desires not to attain equality with anyone else, simple logic tells us they cannot be equal.

Absolutely right—the action—the act of God by sending His Son Jesus Christ. I think your 3rd statement does not apply on what God has done for us. I believe it should be God desires to fulfill the prophecy, the mission of salvation by sending His own Son to save us from the penalty of death. Therefore, God’s desire was made through incarnation in the person of Christ. The desire of God by not attaining equality has a purpose; it does not mean that Jesus and God’s nature are not equal from the start based on your statement.

7. Php 2:6 indicates even in His pre-incarnate form [morphe], Jesus was a lesser [unequal] God than His Father. Suggested by the fact He did not want to seize an opportunity to be His equal.

6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

The statement in Philippians initially stated that Jesus Christ is in the form of God. How He could become lesser in this statement? It should be questioned in “Why”?

I believe this is very important in studying those statements. Why He need to be made Himself of no reputation and need to take the form of a servant?

I would believe your statement if verse 6 was not written or stated here. Therefore, it is obviously stated that there is a form of God and a form of a servant. Hence, this supported that Jesus Christ is in the form of God and in the form of a servant (man).

8. So what you are saying is since Christ was already equal to His Father, He did not want to take advantage of seizing [harpagmos] an opportunity of being equal to His Father??? Makes no sense at all. What makes sense is the fact Christ was not equal to His Father and did not consider equality something to seize or snatch violently [harpagmos].

No, not exactly in that context; Again, we will go back to the question of “why.” Since the Father and Jesus Christ are equal in nature (deity), He did not take His advantage to be equal because He has come (Immanuel-God with us) to be in the form of a servant (man in flesh). Man cannot be equal with God in their physical state (rank and status). That is given and true.

Therefore, He has to take aside (not use it) to lived with men for a purpose—the salvation of man from the penalty of sin. And this, I believed are consistent with Phil. 2:6-7. This would support, and consistently not denying but proving that one God exists in the person of Christ. This is what the Philippians 2:5-7 sounds.

I have this quote from the Living Bible which may better add clarification with what I’m explaining.

5. Your attitude should be the kind that was shown us by Jesus Christ,
6. who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God,
7. but laid aside his mighty power and glory, taking the disguise of a slave and becoming like men. Christ humbled himself.

Thanks.

 

[Yoshua]

Gal.3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Who did God promise?


(A) Son of God

(B) God the Son

(C) Its a mystery


What is your choice?

Hi Notaclue,

God gave promises to Abraham and His child, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Thanks

 

[Oeste]

That’s a synonym, not a definition. I never argued they weren’t similar, I’m arguing they are not equivalent.

Look, I have a $20.00 bill that I printed in my garage. Is it similar to other $20.00 bills?
Yes.

Is it equivalent?
No.

1. And I'm trying to convey the fact you are utilizing synonyms in an attempt to define two different, abstract English terms. Attempting to compare a quantifiable, physical object (money) with an abstract, qualitative concept (everlasting/eternal life) is apples to oranges.

Actually it was you who attempted to use synonyms rather than definitions to define eternal and everlasting. I’m trying to convey to you that eternal and everlasting are defined differently. You attempted to show they were interchangeable using synonyms.

You have yet to prove why we need to go to scripture rather than a good English lexicon to find the difference between “eternal” and “everlasting”. Etymologically, “eternal” and “everlasting” are sourced from Latin, not Koine Greek.

2. You mean I have to actually prove to you that a "good" English lexicon's definition takes precedence over the bible's usage of the inspired word???

Most certainly!

I don't know anyone who breaks open a bible (in Koine Greek no less) to define English words like "everlasting" or "eternal". What other words must be defined in Greek before they can be rendered in English???

I do not understand how scripture can "correctly reflect" “eternal” and “everlasting” as interchangeable when the New Testament is written in Koine Greek and not English.

That is self-refuting. The reason you claim they cannot be interchangeable, is the very reason why they are! The NT was written in Greek and the insertion of either English term for aionios does not accurately reflect the definition of the Greek term. This is why many of the translations utilize the two English terms interchangeably.

How does this help your argument? We're not talking about the Greek definition of "aionios". We're talking about the English definition of "eternal" and "everlasting". Eternal and everlasting do not mean the same, as I illustrated, graphically, on another post.

The question is whether “eternal” and “everlasting” can be used interchangeably and they cannot. Eternal is defined as no beginning or end. Everlasting is defined as without end, but never as “without beginning”, so while the terms are similar they are not equivalent.

Perhaps according to your philosopher's definition they cannot be used interchangeably. Based on the original Greek term's (aionios) definition, from which they have been translated, yes, they can and have been used interchangeably.

No. Not according to any philosopher's definition but according to any run of the mill, everyday dictionary.

These are ENGLISH words James2ko, not Greek. When we define ENGLISH words we go to an English dictionary. When we define GREEK words we go to a Greek one.

It doesn't matter if the English words have an equivalent word in Greek, Koine or not. English words are first and foremost defined in English.

Neither "eternal" or "everlasting" are Greek words.

5. Before Greek words are translated, some translators consult Greek and English dictionaries, other resources, consider the cultural context, and examine the term's usage and grammar elsewhere in order to come up with an accurate translation. Often times, there is no exact match. Hence the synonymous translation insertion of the two English terms--everlasting and eternal

But we're not talking about Greek words here...we're talking about English words, remember?

You stated eternal and everlasting are interchangeable. They are not.

This has nothing to do with Greek. The ancient Greeks never used or mouthed "eternal" or "everlasting" because the English language hadn't been invented yet!

I'm really not seeing the difficulty here.

.

6. I'm not that interested in knowing how the two English terms are defined.. I'm only interested in how the original, inspired Greek term was defined and utilized.

That's going to be difficult, since "eternal" and "everlasting" are English words that to my knowledge have never been found, much less defined, in Koine Greek.

Rather, it is better to take the Greek word and find the most appropriate English word based on the meaning and contextual usage of the Greek word being translated. The same goes when translating English to Greek…it’s better to find the best Greek word based on the meaning and contextual usage of the English word, and not redefine the English based on what it means in Greek.

7. And this is precisely what the translators of the KJV and others did in Mat 19:16 and Joh 3:36, supporting the conclusion, the two English terms are synonymous.

This is where we differ.

It doesn't matter what words the translators decided to use. What matters is how the words are defined. Simply because a translator decides to use "eternal" or "everlasting" interchangeably does not give us license to make the words interchangeable. A translator could take a word like πάγος and translate it in some places to "ice" , in another place "snow" and yet another as "crystal". That would not support a conclusion that ice, snow, and crystal are interchangeable in English.

Theologically, I believe the only being with eternal life is God, regardless of how the Greeks (or our translators) use the term. Lexicologically, the words are different in English

As a student of Greek grammar, you already know “aion” and the adverbial “aionios” are Greek words which can convey multiple meanings in English. Exactly which English word conveyed is dependent upon the translator. Once translated, it’s possible the translated word will convey meanings in English never envisaged by the original Greek. It’s the nature of language

8. But we are suppose to derive our theology from the lexicological use, among other factors, of the original language, not our native tongue. To do otherwise would limit our ability rightly divide God's word.

True, but neither "eternal" or "everlasting" are derived from Koine Greek. At best, they would be derived from Latin.

9. Yet, in principle, that is exactly what you are doing. Forcing two distinctively contrived English definitions on one Greek term-- aionios.

How? We are not discussing how aionios was used by ancient Greeks but whether the English words eternal and everlasting are fully interchangeable...which they are not.

10. The Theologian/Philosopher shared his definition of the two English terms. I suspect the reason he did not utilize any scriptural references is because he is smart enough to know the distinction you believe exists between the two English terms, is non-existent in the original languages of scripture.

I suspect he didn't use scriptural references because he couldn't find English words like "eternal" and "everlasting" in a Koine Greek bible, which has been my point all along.

Unfortunately, your chart reflects the English eisegetical fallacy created for the Greek term "aionos".

The chart doesn't mention "aionios" at all. You may be seeing something that isn't there.

 

[james2ko]

Therefore, you are saying that there is no truth with your beliefs, mine and others. In what way does your belief and my belief is in error? How do you explain that? If your belief is in error, then why do you defend your belief? Why you need to share and explain your belief to others? I don’t see any logic about that.

1. No. I'm saying there is no one, single denomination/sect that has the "full" truth. We all have parts of it. Some more than others. We also all have doctrinal errors. Paul himself admitted to incomplete knowledge (1 Co 13:9,12). And if he had partial knowledge of the "full" truth, it's safe to conclude we do too.

Absolutely right—the action—the act of God by sending His Son Jesus Christ. I think your 3rd statement does not apply on what God has done for us. I believe it should be God desires to fulfill the prophecy, the mission of salvation by sending His own Son to save us from the penalty of death. Therefore, God’s desire was made through incarnation in the person of Christ.

2. It was Jesus who did not take the action of violently seizing [harpagmos] equality with God. Instead, he chose the opposite action of humbly shedding himself of his glorified, spirit body for a measly human one.

The desire of God by not attaining equality has a purpose;

3. The purpose is to show Jesus was not equal to the Father in rank and status. As several scriptures testify.

it does not mean that Jesus and God’s nature are not equal from the start based on your statement.

4. You're having a difficult time proving it to me from the scriptures.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:The statement in Philippians initially stated that Jesus Christ is in the form of God. How He could become lesser in this statement? It should be questioned in “Why”?

5. I've been stating all along they were both in the same spirit form [morphe] while Christ was preincanate. I think the misunderstanding is between rank and power. In the military, a private and a General are both in the human form [morphe] . Yet one is "greater" than the other in rank and power. Similarly, the glorified Christ and The Father are in the same spirit form, yet one is "greater" than the other in rank and power.

I believe this is very important in studying those statements. Why He need to be made Himself of no reputation and need to take the form of a servant?I would believe your statement if verse 6 was not written or stated here. erefore, it is obviously stated that there is a form of God and a form of a servant. Hence, this supported that Jesus Christ is in the form of God and in the form of a servant (man).

6. That's right. The pre-incarnate Christ was in the same spirit form [morphe] as God (vs 6). The incarnate Christ came in the same form and schema (vs 8) as a human servant (man-vs 7). His incarnation proved to us and His Father He did not want to violently seize equality (in rank and status) with Him.

No, not exactly in that context; Again, we will go back to the question of “why.” Since the Father and Jesus Christ are equal in nature (deity), He did not take His advantage to be equal because He has come (Immanuel-God with us) to be in the form of a servant (man in flesh). Man cannot be equal with God in their physical state (rank and status). That is given and true.

Therefore, He has to take aside (not use it) to lived with men for a purpose—the salvation of man from the penalty of sin. And this, I believed are consistent with Phil. 2:6-7. This would support, and consistently not denying but proving that one God exists in the person of Christ. This is what the Philippians 2:5-7 sounds. I have this quote from the Living Bible which may better add clarification with what I’m explaining.

7. There is nothing in the term "harpagmos" to suggest an "advantage". That is being read into the text by you and some translators. There are several other Greek terms that are translated "advantage" in the KJV [G4053, G4122, G5622). Paul would have used at least one of these terms to get his point across. Since he did not, my interpretation will stand. But I am not alone. My interpretation of the term "harpagmos" is the one held by Trinitarian Greek scholar, Daniel Wallace.

5. Your attitude should be the kind that was shown us by Jesus Christ, 6. who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God,
7. but laid aside his mighty power and glory, taking the disguise of a slave and becoming like men. Christ humbled himself.

8. Dr. Wallace disagrees with your interpretation:

“…Thus if [huparcho-being] is casual, [harpagmos] means robbery (“who being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as robbery); if huparcho-being] is concessive, then [harpagmos] means a thing to be grasped (“who being in the form of God, did not consider equality a thing to be grasped”). As attractive as the first alternative might be theologically, it is not satisfactory. .."​

And so does Dr. Ralph Martin, Ph.D, esteemed Trinitarian New Testament scholar, who based his doctorate dissertation on the book of Phillipians:

“It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’” The Expositor’s Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω [har·pa′zo-G726] or any of its derivatives[1] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.​

In other words, when the passage is placed under the "microscope", your claim on Jesus demanding or clinging on to His right as God is not grammatically or contextually supported.

 

[Muffled]

Gal.3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Who did God promise?


(A) Son of God

(B) God the Son

(C) Its a mystery


What is your choice?


Peace.

I believe B. is God's choice so I agree with Him.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus is a manifestation of God.

I believe that does not mean merely a manifestation as the Muslims like to slip in that word (merely) that doesn't exist in their scripture.

 

[Muffled]

James2ko wrote: "2. It was Jesus, not the Father , who did not take the action of violently seizing [harpagmos] equality with God. Instead, he chose the opposite action of humbly shedding himself of his glorified, spirit body for a measly human one."

I do not believe "form of a servant" means shredding His spirit form but simply means that He did not present himself in the form of a Glorious God. It would be like saying the police woman took on the form of a street walker in order to be an undercover agent. The person didn't change form but just the formalities associated with position.

 

[james2ko]

I do not believe "form of a servant" means shredding His spirit form but simply means that He did not present himself in the form of a Glorious God. It would be like saying the police woman took on the form of a street walker in order to be an undercover agent. The person didn't change form but just the formalities associated with position.

I believe He emptied (kenoo-G2758-vs 7) Himself of his spirit body "morphe" (G3444-vs 6) and surrendered His power as a God and took on the "schema" (G4976-vs 8) of a human. Schema is broader in scope than "morphe" and includes everything about a human, including our limitations. Indicating to me He gave up all of His rights and powers as a spirit being. It loosely reminds me of the older version of the movie Superman. He had to surrender all of His super powers in order to become a "regular" human.

Had Christ sinned, He would have forfeited His resurrection and would have ceased to exist. Christ put His very existence as a God on the line for an undeserving bunch like us. To me, that makes His incarnation and sacrifice that much more special.

 

[Notaclue]

Hi Notaclue,

God gave promises to Abraham and His child, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Thanks

Gal.3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.



Rom.9:8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


Gal.4:26. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


Matt.3:16. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


Is the Spirit of God, the Jerusalem above?


Peace.

 

[Notaclue]

↑
Gal.3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Who did God promise?


(A) Son of God

(B) God the Son

(C) Its a mystery


What is your choice?


Peace.


I believe B. is God's choice so I agree with Him.

I believe B. is God's choice so I agree with Him.

Did God the Father promise God the Son? If so, how can I get this promise, knowing I am not God?


Peace.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Gal.3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Who did God promise?
(A) Son of God
(B) God the Son
(C) Its a mystery
What is your choice?
Peace.

Through father Abraham and his wife Sarah the promised ' seed ' ( singular ) would come - Genesis 21:12; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 12:3
So, thru Abraham's and Sarah's son 'Isaac' would come the promised ' seed ' ( offspring ) who proved to be Christ Jesus.
Jesus is the offspring ' seed ' of Genesis 3:15
And Jesus will fulfill God's promise that ALL families and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed.
Blessed with the coming benefits of healing for earth's nations according to Revelation 22:2

 

[Notaclue]

Through father Abraham and his wife Sarah the promised ' seed ' ( singular ) would come - Genesis 21:12; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 12:3
So, thru Abraham's and Sarah's son 'Isaac' would come the promised ' seed ' ( offspring ) who proved to be Christ Jesus.
Jesus is the offspring ' seed ' of Genesis 3:15
And Jesus will fulfill God's promise that ALL families and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed.
Blessed with the coming benefits of healing for earth's nations according to Revelation 22:2

You didn't answer the question?


Gal.3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Who did God promise?
(A) Son of God
(B) God the Son
(C) Its a mystery
What is your choice?


Peace.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You didn't answer the question?
Gal.3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Who did God promise?
(A) Son of God
(B) God the Son
(C) Its a mystery
What is your choice?
Peace.

It is (A) because Jesus proved to be the promised ' seed ' (offspring) from Abraham and Sarah through son Isaac - Genesis 21:12; Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18

 

[james2ko]

Actually it was you who attempted to use synonyms rather than definitions to define eternal and everlasting.You attempted to show they were interchangeable using synonyms

1. Really? Can you point out where I attempted to show they (eternal and everlasting) were interchangeable using synonyms? All along I've been claiming the Greek definition should be used to assign an English translation. It is you that insists an English synonym has two distinct definitions not reflected in the Greek tern they are translating.

I’m trying to convey to you that eternal and everlasting are defined differently.

2. Based on some philosophical theory, not fact. The fact is you are ignoring the definition of an inspired Greek term (aion-os), while biasedly injecting the theoretical definition of two uninspired English terms. That is not how to rightly divide God's word.

Most certainly!

I don't know anyone who breaks open a bible (in Koine Greek no less) to define English words like "everlasting" or "eternal".

3. And I don't know of anyone, desiring to rightly divide God's word, who elevates an arguable definition of two English synonyms over the original Greek definition of the word it is translating.

What other words must be defined in Greek before they can be rendered in English???

4. I would hope all of them.

How does this help your argument? We're not talking about the Greek definition of "aionios". We're talking about the English definition of "eternal" and "everlasting". Eternal and everlasting do not mean the same, as I illustrated, graphically, on another post.

5. Yes we are. Aionos is the Greek term used for everlasting and eternal. Eternal and everlasting are mere translations that do not accurately reflect the Greek definition of aionos. Hence their interchangeability in the English translations.

No. Not according to any philosopher's definition but according to any run of the mill, everyday dictionary. These are ENGLISH words James2ko, not Greek. When we define ENGLISH words we go to an English dictionary. When we define GREEK words we go to a Greek one.

6. The NT was originally written in Greek and Aramaic, not English. When scripture is translated, the original Greek term's definition is considered before assigning an English term. A step you want to ignore in order to "squeeze" your Philosopher's theoretical English definition into your interpretation. Theories are nice. I like facts better.

It doesn't matter if the English words have an equivalent word in Greek, Koine or not. English words are first and foremost defined in English. Neither "eternal" or "everlasting" are Greek words.

7. The ultimate goal of each English translator is to find the nearest equivalent English term. Neither eternal or everlasting accurately depict the term they are translating (aionos). Hence their interchangeability.

But we're not talking about Greek words here...we're talking about English words, remember? You stated eternal and everlasting are interchangeable. They are not. This has nothing to do with Greek. The ancient Greeks never used or mouthed "eternal" or "everlasting" because the English language hadn't been invented yet! I'm really not seeing the difficulty here.

8. That's right. The English language "invented" the distinction between eternal and everlasting that doesn't exist in the Greek term aionos. Yet you are attempting to inject that derived distinction into the original meaning.

That's going to be difficult, since "eternal" and "everlasting" are English words that to my knowledge have never been found, much less defined, in Koine Greek.

9. Earning them the right to be interchangeable.

This is where we differ. It doesn't matter what words the translators decided to use. What matters is how the words are defined. Simply because a translator decides to use "eternal" or "everlasting" interchangeably does not give us license to make the words interchangeable. A translator could take a word like πάγος and translate it in some places to "ice" , in another place "snow" and yet another as "crystal". That would not support a conclusion that ice, snow, and crystal are interchangeable in English.

10. But it does support a conclusion the Greek term does not have an exact English equivalent, hence the use of the three different English terms. Similarly, neither eternal or everlasting correctly reflect the Greek term they translate --aionos. Thus the interchangeable use of the two English terms

james2ko said: ↑
8. But we are suppose to derive our theology from the lexicological use, among other factors, of the original language, not our native tongue. To do otherwise would limit our ability rightly divide God's word.

True, but neither "eternal" or "everlasting" are derived from Koine Greek. At best, they would be derived from Latin.

11. If you agree that we are suppose to derive our theology from the lexicological use of the original language and not the English, why do you insist on inserting a theoretical definition of two English words, derived from Latin, into the Greek text??

How? We are not discussing how aionios was used by ancient Greeks but whether the English words eternal and everlasting are fully interchangeable...which they are not.

12. Yes but both English terms are used to translate the same Greek term--aion, aionos. Making the English terms interchangeable.

The chart doesn't mention "aionios" at all. You may be seeing something that isn't there.

13. Then that would make your chart moot because that is the Greek term eternal and everlasting are translating. It's irrelevant to me who, what, where, and how the two English words are derived because the bible was not written in English. I only care about the derived meaning of the term in the inspired language.

I suspect he didn't use scriptural references because he couldn't find English words like "eternal" and "everlasting" in a Koine Greek bible, which has been my point all along.

14. Thus the interchangeability of the two English terms. Which has been my point all along. Your whole argument is self refuting and sadly, you dont see it. Or is it that you don't want to see it?

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe that does not mean merely a manifestation as the Muslims like to slip in that word (merely) that doesn't exist in their scripture.

I'm not sure what word muslims usually use to describe Jesus, it seems to be ''prophet''. I don't think it's very relevant in this context.

 

[Notaclue]

It is (A) because Jesus proved to be the promised ' seed ' (offspring) from Abraham and Sarah through son Isaac - Genesis 21:12; Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18

Gal.3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.



Rom.9:8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


Gal.4:26. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


Jn.3:3. Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, except anyone be born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.”


21Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, 22and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”


Jesus Christ was a child of the Holy Spirit and God while he was living on earth.

Jesus Christ died.

Acts2:32. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


Jesus Christ was a child of the Spirit while he lived on the earth. God resurrected him from the Dead and gave him the Promise, which is the Holy Spirit(Lord ) . (2Cor.3:17)

Rev.21:9. And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,


Jer.3:16. And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.17At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.


Eph.5:31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.


Do you believe this?


Peace.

 

[Yoshua]

1. No. I'm saying there is no one, single denomination/sect that has the "full" truth. We all have parts of it. Some more than others. We also all have doctrinal errors. Paul himself admitted to incomplete knowledge (1 Co 13:9,12). And if he had partial knowledge of the "full" truth, it's safe to conclude we do too.

Hi James,

When Jesus said that He is the truth, I think that would mean there is absolute truth in Him. We believed and follow Christ teachings, and I don’t see any reason why believers could’nt have the truth. If a believer works out his faith in Christ Jesus by doing good works and loving his enemies, this is because of the truth in Christ Jesus.

When it comes to doctrinal, I don’t see the truth that Jesus uttered could lead to errors. What do you think are the doctrinal errors? How could you reconcile the truth of Jesus in relation to doctrinal errors that you are mentioning?

2. It was Jesus who did not take the action of violently seizing [harpagmos] equality with God. Instead, he chose the opposite action of humbly shedding himself of his glorified, spirit body for a measly human one.

Yes. Absolutely.

7. There is nothing in the term "harpagmos" to suggest an "advantage". That is being read into the text by you and some translators. There are several other Greek terms that are translated "advantage" in the KJV [G4053, G4122, G5622). Paul would have used at least one of these terms to get his point across. Since he did not, my interpretation will stand. But I am not alone. My interpretation of the term "harpagmos" is the one held by Trinitarian Greek scholar, Daniel Wallace.

8. Dr. Wallace disagrees with your interpretation:

“…Thus if [huparcho-being] is casual, [harpagmos] means robbery (“who being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as robbery); if huparcho-being] is concessive, then [harpagmos] means a thing to be grasped (“who being in the form of God, did not consider equality a thing to be grasped”). As attractive as the first alternative might be theologically, it is not satisfactory. .."
And so does Dr. Ralph Martin, Ph.D, esteemed Trinitarian New Testament scholar, who based his doctorate dissertation on the book of Phillipians:

“It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’” The Expositor’s Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω [har·pa′zo-G726] or any of its derivatives[1] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.
In other words, when the passage is placed under the "microscope", your claim on Jesus demanding or clinging on to His right as God is not grammatically or contextually supported.

Got it. James. Jesus in His preexistence shared the essential attributes of deity. He is God. He is not a created being. He is the second person of the Trinity. It is clear and clarified.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Gal.3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.



Rom.9:8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


Gal.4:26. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


Matt.3:16. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


Is the Spirit of God, the Jerusalem above?


Peace.

Heb. 12:22-24
22. But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
23. to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect,
24. and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Hi Notaclue,

It is where God lives. I don't see any direct relation of Matt. 3:16 (Baptism of Jesus) with Gal. 4:26.

Thanks

 

[Notaclue]

Heb. 12:22-24
22. But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
23. to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect,
24. and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Hi Notaclue,

It is where God lives. I don't see any direct relation of Matt. 3:16 (Baptism of Jesus) with Gal. 4:26.

Thanks

to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled. in heaven, (Jerusalem)


God has a Son............He was Born from the Dead.


Col.1:18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.


Rom.9:8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


Gal.4:26. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


Peace.....................