How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[Soapy]

The Bible says that Mary had an extraordinary birth. Do you remember the prayer Jesus made when he spoke to his heavenly father? John 17:5. "So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed." So Jesus was in heaven with glory before he came to the earth.

What do you mean by Mary having an extraordinary birth? I’m not understanding that ambiguous claim?
1) Mary was extraordinarily born?
2) Mary gave birth extraordinarily?

Neither are true, are they?

God, our Father, created us, Male and female he made. He designed two to come together as a unit (as one) and remain together (metaphorically: ‘one flesh’). The female he made to incubate a pregnation from the male so an flesh offspring of the two is procreated.

The first humanBeing was not PROCREATED because God, a Spirit, does not PROCREATE.. a Spirit only CREATES. Adam, being created by God, was perfect in terms of sinlessness and holiness: a perfect son of God in the flesh (Luke 3:38 - paraphrased)

After Adam sinned, he was no longer [true] Son of God, and God was angry and desired to destroy his creation ... but he relented and gave his son of flesh creation a chance to redeem HIMSELF (redeem mankind!!) IF ANOTHER MAN OF HOLINESS COULD BE FOUND AND SERVE AS A SACRIFICE (Slaughtered Lamb!) : pure blood sacrifice... this is why every year there was an animal sacrifice serving as a placeholder for that perfect Son sacrifice...

As with any good designer, God prepared a contingency plan in case no ‘son of Adam’ was found for the sacrifice. And so it was that, given enough time, and no son of Adam was found for this sacrifice ([King] David coming through nearest), God CREATED a NEW SON (a SECOND - or LAST) Adam, and directed that his name be called ‘Jesus’ (actually it was ‘Joshua’ but we’ve changed it for some seemingly purposeful reason?!!?!)

If you are a thinking person, you will have noted that ONLY THE INERT BODY of Adam was created by the ‘US’... It was a DEAD (not living) BODY... ‘And God breathed the breathe of life into his nostrils and THE MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL!!!

Continuing this theme, and you being wise, will know that the SEED OF A WOMAN is INERT. It is discharged unceremoniously on a monthly basis if not put to a procreative use. Sin, as you know, spiritually, comes from the Male (Adam) because it was to Adam that God gave the command to refrain from the ‘fruit’. So, the impregnating by the Male continues the sin into the offspring thereof!

So, you know that Mary had not been subject to any Male impregnating (was a Virgin) so when God’s Holy Spirit ‘overshadowed the Virgin’ it is certain that ‘the child to be born will be [sinless and] Holy; the Son of God’.

So, you agree that the [creation] of Jesus was the SAME as the [creation] of Adam... hence scriptures calls Jesus, ‘The [second/Last] Adam’... and BOTH are therefore called, ‘SON OF GOD’.

And just for completeness: ‘Son’ means:

• ‘He who does the complete WILL of the Father’
• ‘Why do you say I blaspheme [to say I called myself God] when I only said I was the SON OF GOD...’, Jesus said to the Jews
• ‘Everyone who follows the Spirit of God are Sons [children] of God’, Scriptures says

Holy Angels are ‘[Spirit] Sons’ of God for that definitive reason. Mankind (in Adam and Jesus) was(Adam) / is(Jesus) Flesh Son of God.

Checking back on your statement... I’m pretty glad you acknowledged that Jesus states that God was his ‘Heavenly Father’. It is a testament to truth that anyone who truly believes in YHWH GOD also calls him, ‘Heavenly Father’.

And, as has been pointed out by rrobs, ‘Coming out from God’ is not claiming a PROCREATION. Else we believers are ALL GOD... which you know to be nonsense and certainly, as Jesus was horrified at, A BLASPHEMOUS CLAIM TO BE GOD!!

The ‘prize’ Jesus refers to was to become king over creation. Adam, if he had not sinned, would have been that king as he would have been ‘The Father of mankind’. Jesus, in replacing Adam, chooses, at the judgement seat, those he deems worthy and ‘gives them eternal life’ ... hence Jesus, as prophesy states, becomes, ‘ETERNAL Father’ (Guess what the definition of ‘Father’ is!!!)

Ask yourself these questions:

1. What exactly does that so-called request from Jesus ACTUALLY MEAN??
2. What was the prize - exactly?
3. Why did Jesus ‘appear’ to have lost it and has proven himself now to regain it?
4. Are you claiming Jesus is God?
   1. God is immutable - how did he lose a part of his glory?
   2. God is three (by trinity) and UN-UNITED. How did one of an un-united three de-unit himself to become separate and ensconced in flesh with all its frailties and subject to all such frailties of the flesh - even to not knowing things and not able to do things that God most certainly has no problems doing?
   3. What prize can God receive that he does not ALREADY AND ALWAYS OWN
   4. To become king over creation is surely a DEMOTION if the receiver is ALMIGHTY GOD; king over HEAVEN!!!

 

[eik]

No JW here. They believe in a preexisting Jesus which would hardly make him like his brethren (us).

Heb 2:17,

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.​

By pre-existing Jesus is meant "Logos per Jn 1:1 (obviously). The man Jesus Christ did not pre-exist before he was born (obviously). Logos is a Greek religious term for something understood as pre-existing. If Jesus did not pre-exist he would not have been called "Logos."

One thing "coming from" another does not prove a trinity or that Jesus is God. If anything, one thing coming from another indicates two distinct entities.

I never said "Jesus was God," I said only that he came from God. Coming from God does not make you God, once you have "come." Yet on the other hand, neither does it divorce you from your origin, such that Christ could say "before Abraham was born I am."

Matt 2:6,

And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
​

Here it says Jesus come out (same Greek word as the other "came from"s) Bethlehem. Does that then make Jesus Bethlehem?

Context is everything. Your context above is the geographic origination of the man.

​

Lot's of things came down from heaven in the Bible. Here's just one:

Isa 55:10,

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
​

Here is another place where Jesus said he came from the father.

John 8:42,

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.
​

Notice the simple grammatical construction in part "B" that show there is a sender and there is the one sent. It takes incredible mental gymnastics to make the two one. The same principle is demonstrated over and over again every time Jesus prays to God. God does not pray to Himself!

I agree. Jesus is not the Father who is described as "true God."

I think one of the most notable examples of this is in the garden when Jesus asked God 3 times to do something besides his crucifixion as a remedy to sin. He ended by saying, "not my will, but thine be done." Two completely diametrically opposed wills here. Does God suffer from some kind of multiple personality disorder? I think it much easier to just believe that Jesus is in fact the son of God, which the scriptures declare some 50 times as opposed to the 0 appearances of the unscriptural "God the Son" appellation.

I am with you on that point. I fear you must have misunderstood me.

Here's a couple other verses that talk of things coming down from heaven: Ps 78:24 and John 6:31,

To "come down from heaven" is a well know Jewish idiom that simply means good things came from God. Rain in the desert is certainly a good thing. Jesus even more so. Way more so!

I know you wrote more, but I hope you don't mind me not biting off too big of a chunk. In any case, any ideas on what I wrote above?

It does help if you do not jump to conclusions. Never have I ever stated a belief that Jesus should be labelled "God the son." Moreover Jesus did pre-exist, but not as a man per Jn 1.

Also, if you wouldn't mind, let's just stick to the scriptures and avoid calling each other's study rubbish and weasel words. You are clearly an intelligent individual with a real love for God and His word. While I obviously disagree with some things you say, you are nonetheless deserving of my respect. You're my brother for crying out loud! I gotta love ya!

I could agree with what you say above, but to say that Jesus didn't pre-exist, if not JW, is classical unitarianism / arianism, which I do not agree with. Unitarianism is a reaction far too far against Trinitarianism, which I oppose as based in the importation of Greek & Egyptian triadism. Jesus did pre-exist. He said so himself over and over again. A merely "idiomatic" usage as to coming from heaven is not made out. He distinguished himself from all other man by saying that they did not come down from heaven, but he did, such that this removes the idiomatic force of words that could otherwise have been used of any of God's annointed, of which there were many, e.g. High Priests, Cyrus etc.

 

[Soapy]

Again I disagree. The Trinity doctine is actually founded on an arian Jesus

Oh dear... oh deary deary me!!! Trinity doctrine is founded on Arian Jesus? Oh my gosh! Someone has lost their marbles here!!

The Romans were fed up with the ‘warring’ between the TRINITARIANS and the ARIANS... that’s why they called the councils of Nicea and the likes... To sort out the differences and establish one Christian belief. The Romans didn’t care which was to be it... just stop the fighting. Each side presented their case and the one that presented the most agreeable case wins! The loser was to stop preaching and not quarrel again!

So how on earth could trinity come from Arianism?

Arianist believed Jesus was a man ONLY. But with some other weird nonsense. Trinitarians believed Jesus was a man AND ALMIGHTY IN THE FLESH and was part of a three-persons God (Trinity).

One thing "coming from" another does not prove a trinity or that Jesus is God. If anything, one thing coming from another indicates two distinct entities.

Its not even about ‘proving’... it simply means that ‘God SENT HIM’. And it follows exactly that (should not even need stating) if God sent him then Jesus cannot BE GOD!!! God did not sent himself!!!

Matt 2:6,

And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
Here it says Jesus come out (same Greek word as the other "came from"s) Bethlehem. Does that then make Jesus Bethlehem?

Isaiah 42:1 states emphatically that God WOULD send his SERVANT whom he upholds. God taught Jesus what to say and do and as such what Jesus says and did was exactly what he was taught: this is the definition of “[The] WORD of God”. I cannot see why on earth trinity types want to claim it is anything other than this! If Jesus is God, what they say, then how is GOD his own “WORD OF GOD”... for sure, no one has to say that they are their own word? Any honest truthful and righteous person is true unto themself. God SENDS his servant just like a king sends an emissary - but only an insane person would say that the king is his own emissary... AND nor would an emissary EVER claim to be the king who taught him what to say and do and sent him to whom whom the king commanded.

John 8:42,
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.

Here again, ‘GOD SENT HIM!!’... perfecto...

Check out:

1. Beside God
2. From God
3. Glory With God

These things are not compatible if the claim is that the Son IS GOD... For sure:

• If he IS God he cannot be BESIDE God
• If he IS God he cannot be FROM God
• If he IS God he cannot be WITH God

Can any untruth speaker present a case where any of these 1,2, and 3, are true?

 

[rrobs]

The Bible says that Mary had an extraordinary birth. Do you remember the prayer Jesus made when he spoke to his heavenly father? John 17:5. "So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed." So Jesus was in heaven with glory before he came to the earth.

Yes, and God choose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
​

Maybe this would help understand how such a thing could be.

Rom 4:17,

(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
​

The glory Jesus had and our holiness was in God's foreknowledge and not literal.

Let's face it, there are some verses that seem to say Jesus is God and others that say he is not. Now, we can't have the Bible contradict itself, so somehow we must make all verses agree.

John 17:5 could be a verse that says Jesus is God. But what about 1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

We have to make these verses agree somehow. I've given you my belief on how to do that in John 17:5 . If we understand that John is speaking about God's foreknowledge, then they fit. But if we leave John as saying Jesus is God, then we need to address 1 Corinthians 8:6 so it says something other than only the Father is God, because that is sure what it seems to say. Do you have any ideas on how that could say anything but the one God is the Father?

Perhaps we could go over other verses that seem to contradict and see how to make them fit. After answering to 1 Corinthians 8:6, give me another verse that seems to say Jesus is God, I'll give my best answer and then give you a verse that seems to say Jesus is not God. Repeat as necessary. Neither of us should be afraid to say, "I don't know" if that is the case.

God bless

 

[Soapy]

Yes, and God choose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
​

Maybe this would help understand how such a thing could be.

Rom 4:17,

(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
​

The glory Jesus had and our holiness was in God's foreknowledge and not literal.

Let's face it, there are some verses that seem to say Jesus is God and others that say he is not. Now, we can't have the Bible contradict itself, so somehow we must make all verses agree.

John 17:5 could be a verse that says Jesus is God. But what about 1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

We have to make these verses agree somehow. I've given you my belief on how to do that in John 17:5 . If we understand that John is speaking about God's foreknowledge, then they fit. But if we leave John as saying Jesus is God, then we need to address 1 Corinthians 8:6 so it says something other than only the Father is God, because that is sure what it seems to say. Do you have any ideas on how that could say anything but the one God is the Father?

Perhaps we could go over other verses that seem to contradict and see how to make them fit. After answering to 1 Corinthians 8:6, give me another verse that seems to say Jesus is God, I'll give my best answer and then give you a verse that seems to say Jesus is not God. Repeat as necessary. Neither of us should be afraid to say, "I don't know" if that is the case.

God bless

John 17:5 says nothing about Jesus being God... what on earth or in heaven do you see that makes such an insinuation?

What is the glory that Jesus is supposed to have had AND PRESUMABLY LOST... and is ASKING BACK?

What and who can take from God and that God needs to BEG BACK? Are you talking of mythical. and pagan God-Man Thor begging mythical and pagan God Odin to let him return to Valhalla?

From before the foundation of the earth YHWH had proposed that the dutiful Son would inherit the kingdom that HE, YHWH, was going to create. This is evident since the created world is a LIMITED PHYSICAL world and requires a limited physical RULER. It’s no point in appointing a Spirit RULER to manage a physical world.

While awaiting the KING to RULE the physical world, YHWH appointed HIS ANGELS to GOVERN (be STEWARDS) over the high level aspects of it and left the day to day year to year aspects to mankind. It was some of these Angels who rebelled with Satan (The angels who left their station and made bodies for themselves and took on a monstrous form of human likeness and bred the Nephilims through human females!). Satan knows he will relinquish his SENIOR position to the SON OF MAN whom YHWH appoints... Satan is currently the RULER OF THIS ORDER OF THINGS...The God of this world who has ‘come into his kingdom with wrath knowing his time is short!’.
So Jesus had just fulfilled all that YHWH had desired of him and was going to his death... the final act but the prior was that he DELIVERED THE TESTIMONY to those whom YHWH had SENT him to delivery of to (‘The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave him to give to his servant[S?!]’). YHWH had glorified Jesus and Jesus glorified GOD, his Father and established his (YHWH)’s name on earth so Jesus knew that:

• The REWARD (prize) that had awaited THE SON OF GOD was due to him... he knew he had earned it.

If ADAM had not sinned then He would have been that SON OF GOD who received that reward - Rulership over thr created world AS FATHER of MANKIND!. As it turns out, Jesus did not ‘Father’ mankind but since he will judge mankind on judgement day (WHICH THE FATHER ALONE WILL APPOINT IN HIS GOOD TIME... Jesus doesn’t know nor has authority to know the day nor the hour... only the Father!!! How can GOD not know what he knows???? Illogical to the extreme!!!!) Jesus will GIVE LIFE TO (‘To Father’) those whom he chooses - and eternal life to them.. therefore he SHALL BE ETERNAL FATHER...

So, no, John 17:5 has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus being seen as God?

 

[sojourner]

So since you say the apostles' teaching is not all found in the Bible, where would a person find them?

Srrsly?

 

[eik]

Oh dear... oh deary deary me!!! Trinity doctrine is founded on Arian Jesus? Oh my gosh! Someone has lost their marbles here!!

The Romans were fed up with the ‘warring’ between the TRINITARIANS and the ARIANS... that’s why they called the councils of Nicea and the likes... To sort out the differences and establish one Christian belief. The Romans didn’t care which was to be it... just stop the fighting. Each side presented their case and the one that presented the most agreeable case wins! The loser was to stop preaching and not quarrel again!

So how on earth could trinity come from Arianism?

Because the Greek philosophy that the Trinity was formed from was itself totally arian, with gods begetting gods in heaven. The only difference between trinitarianism and arianism is that in trinitarianism, the son was begotten before "all worlds", (Nicene creed) whereas in arianism the son is begotten in time. In non-trianitarian belief, Christ is begotten at his conception.

The Trinitarian versus Arian debate was thus a philosophical debate as to when the Son was begotten in heaven. To present it as anything to do with Christianity per se, would be a mistake because scripture never says the son was begotten in heaven. Yet the grosser forms of arianism that make out Christ didn't come from God, or didn't pre-exist, are clearly non-biblical.

 

[Soapy]

Because the Greek philosophy that the Trinity was formed from was itself totally arian, with gods begetting gods in heaven. The only difference between trinitarianism and arianism is that in trinitarianism, the son was begotten before "all worlds", (Nicene creed) whereas in arianism the son is begotten in time. In non-trianitarian belief, Christ is begotten at his conception.

The Trinitarian versus Arian debate was thus a philosophical debate as to when the Son was begotten in heaven. To present it as anything to do with Christianity per se, would be a mistake because scripture never says the son was begotten in heaven. Yet the grosser forms of arianism that make out Christ didn't come from God, or didn't pre-exist, are clearly non-biblical.

You have no idea what you are writing about. I know this is a debate thread but ... really!!! At least debate about true Scriptures of Yhwh God and his Christ, and Trinitarianism.

There were and are not three Christ’s preached... only two: True Christ, the glorified man, and false Christ, an impossible god-man part of a trio of an Trinity-organisation termed ‘God’. JW’s do preach a strange elixir, a synergy, that the son was once an angel... but that is easily dismissed as, from Arianism, no angel could be ‘son of God in the flesh’, and from trinity, the Son pre-existed the angels and angels are servants of God in ways unlike a Son. This partway partnoway concoction fails at the first hurdle as to the origins of Jesus.

Choose your camp! For or against the truth!
Jesus says that it is better to be ‘Cold’ against him or better to be ‘Hot’ for him - but to be ‘Tepid’ is filthy and he spits you out.

The truth: Jesus is ‘Son of God’ because he did all that God commanded him to do. The first Adam was ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38) but sinned and lost his place. Another was brought up to replace him: called ‘The Last Adam’.

Both the first and the last Adam were created NOT FROM THE SEED OF ANOTHER HUMAM BEING. Both their bodies were ENLIVENED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT BREATHE OF GOD... and therefore were SINLESS AND HOLY ...

 

[rrobs]

John 17:5 says nothing about Jesus being God... what on earth or in heaven do you see that makes such an insinuation?

What is the glory that Jesus is supposed to have had AND PRESUMABLY LOST... and is ASKING BACK?
I
What and who can take from God and that God needs to BEG BACK? Are you talking of mythical. and pagan God-Man Thor begging mythical and pagan God Odin to let him return to Valhalla?

From before the foundation of the earth YHWH had proposed that the dutiful Son would inherit the kingdom that HE, YHWH, was going to create. This is evident since the created world is a LIMITED PHYSICAL world and requires a limited physical RULER. It’s no point in appointing a Spirit RULER to manage a physical world.

While awaiting the KING to RULE the physical world, YHWH appointed HIS ANGELS to GOVERN (be STEWARDS) over the high level aspects of it and left the day to day year to year aspects to mankind. It was some of these Angels who rebelled with Satan (The angels who left their station and made bodies for themselves and took on a monstrous form of human likeness and bred the Nephilims through human females!). Satan knows he will relinquish his SENIOR position to the SON OF MAN whom YHWH appoints... Satan is currently the RULER OF THIS ORDER OF THINGS...The God of this world who has ‘come into his kingdom with wrath knowing his time is short!’.
So Jesus had just fulfilled all that YHWH had desired of him and was going to his death... the final act but the prior was that he DELIVERED THE TESTIMONY to those whom YHWH had SENT him to delivery of to (‘The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave him to give to his servant[S?!]’). YHWH had glorified Jesus and Jesus glorified GOD, his Father and established his (YHWH)’s name on earth so Jesus knew that:

• The REWARD (prize) that had awaited THE SON OF GOD was due to him... he knew he had earned it.

If ADAM had not sinned then He would have been that SON OF GOD who received that reward - Rulership over thr created world AS FATHER of MANKIND!. As it turns out, Jesus did not ‘Father’ mankind but since he will judge mankind on judgement day (WHICH THE FATHER ALONE WILL APPOINT IN HIS GOOD TIME... Jesus doesn’t know nor has authority to know the day nor the hour... only the Father!!! How can GOD not know what he knows???? Illogical to the extreme!!!!) Jesus will GIVE LIFE TO (‘To Father’) those whom he chooses - and eternal life to them.. therefore he SHALL BE ETERNAL FATHER...

So, no, John 17:5 has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus being seen as God?

I know. I was doing a "what if" thing with YoursTrue.

He thinks John 17:5 says Jesus is God. I never said that. I simply agreed with him what John said about Jesus having glory before the world was. It would be foolish to deny it said that, because it actually says that.

I then proceeded to point out Ephesians, 1:4 which says God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I suggested that both verses are talking about God's foreknowledge and that Jesus didn't literally exist before the creation any more than we literally existed.

I then quoted Romans 4:17 to show that God, "calleth those things which be not as though they were" to further illustrate God's foreknowledge.

I'm not sure how you read my post and came to the conclusion that I think Jesus is God. I thought I was being clear, but perhaps I need to tune up my writing a bit. In any case, I am among the measly 1.4% of Christians who understand Jesus to be a man, not a god and certainly not some grotesque god-man creature.

I would venture to say that the world is in such a mess directly due to the church worshiping false gods. Look what happened to Israel when they worshiped false gods. It seems like we are going in the same direction. The church needs a revival, starting with an understanding of who God is and who Jesus is. God is the Father and Jesus is His son. How in the world does such an incredibly simple idea get so screwed up in the church?

God bless

 

[rrobs]

I could agree with what you say above, but to say that Jesus didn't pre-exist, if not JW, is classical unitarianism / arianism, which I do not agree with. Unitarianism is a reaction far too far against Trinitarianism, which I oppose as based in the importation of Greek & Egyptian triadism. Jesus did pre-exist. He said so himself over and over again. A merely "idiomatic" usage as to coming from heaven is not made out. He distinguished himself from all other man by saying that they did not come down from heaven, but he did, such that this removes the idiomatic force of words that could otherwise have been used of any of God's annointed, of which there were many, e.g. High Priests, Cyrus etc.

I guess I did misunderstand some of what you said. I'm think I'm beginning to see that we both understand the scriptures in more of the same light than not.

I'll have to work on John where, as you pointed out, Jesus said they were from below while he was from above. It is important that we understand the scriptures, not from a modern Western point of view, but from an ancient Middle Eastern point of view. Their worldview was quite different than our own. It's just something I always try to keep in mind and it has helped me work through difficult verses. I need to do that with John.

The biggest problem I have with Jesus being preexistent is that it would hardly make him like us.

Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
​

If Jesus preexisted how could he be tempted just like us? I might react differently to temptation if I had a consciousness that I existed with God before the world was created. Knowing that would be a huge advantage during temptation over someone who did not know they preexisted.

God bless

 

[Soapy]

I know. I was doing a "what if" thing with YoursTrue.

He thinks John 17:5 says Jesus is God. I never said that. I simply agreed with him what John said about Jesus having glory before the world was. It would be foolish to deny it said that, because it actually says that.

I then proceeded to point out Ephesians, 1:4 which says God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I suggested that both verses are talking about God's foreknowledge and that Jesus didn't literally exist before the creation any more than we literally existed.

I then quoted Romans 4:17 to show that God, "calleth those things which be not as though they were" to further illustrate God's foreknowledge.

I'm not sure how you read my post and came to the conclusion that I think Jesus is God. I thought I was being clear, but perhaps I need to tune up my writing a bit. In any case, I am among the measly 1.4% of Christians who understand Jesus to be a man, not a god and certainly not some grotesque god-man creature.

I would venture to say that the world is in such a mess directly due to the church worshiping false gods. Look what happened to Israel when they worshiped false gods. It seems like we are going in the same direction. The church needs a revival, starting with an understanding of who God is and who Jesus is. God is the Father and Jesus is His son. How in the world does such an incredibly simple idea get so screwed up in the church?

God bless

Perhaps it was I that was being too harsh. I did see you were [struggling] to put forward your case and started off dismayed that you should even imagine John 17:5 was saying that Jesus ‘Had glory WITH GOD before the world was.’

It doesn’t even make sense and is CLEARLY one of those trinity translation twaddles!! The prize was certainly THERE from before the world was - God would have already decided that there would be a human being who would rule as king over the world he was about to create.

What use or benefit would there be for God, a Spirit, to rule over a physical world? The Spirit world is a billion times greater a created physical world that is limited by physical forces.

Is it not obvious sense that it takes a human ruler to have glory ruling a physical world? Even Satan knew he was only a steward over the created world awaiting the dutiful Son of God to take his place:

• ‘It is mine to give to whom I will... but I will give to you NOW [without the suffering that is required] if you now down NOW and worship me!’ (Paraphrased)

You are right about the other verses (of course) and it will be interesting to see what your challenger comes up with.... if John 17:5 is ambiguous (due to deliberate mistranslation... added text to try to force the meaning into saying Jesus was pre-existent!) then how are the many other verses to be reconciled when they clearly do not say anything of the sort?

The prize, again, is HELD BY SATAN (as quoted in paraphrase above) So if stupidly, Jesus was God because he had had the prize (glory) before the worlds, WHEN DID SATAN ACQUIRE IT?

And certainly, scriptures more than should be required, tells that there is ALMIGHTY GOD, the Father, and ONLY TRUE GOD... and there is Jesus _The] Christ, anointed by God, sanctified by him, raised from the dead by him, given power and authority by him, made to be Lord and Master by God... spoken of both in such manner as:

• ‘God our Father, and Jesus Christ our Lord’

which in no obscure way explicitly states that God is ... and Jesus is not.. God.

But we should DEFINE what is meant by ‘GOD’..,

No trinitarian wants to nor can do this without destroying the doctrine of the trinity... try them and see!!!

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by Mary having an extraordinary birth? I’m not understanding that ambiguous claim?
1) Mary was extraordinarily born?
2) Mary gave birth extraordinarily?

Neither are true, are they?

God, our Father, created us, Male and female he made. He designed two to come together as a unit (as one) and remain together (metaphorically: ‘one flesh’). The female he made to incubate a pregnation from the male so an flesh offspring of the two is procreated.

The first humanBeing was not PROCREATED because God, a Spirit, does not PROCREATE.. a Spirit only CREATES. Adam, being created by God, was perfect in terms of sinlessness and holiness: a perfect son of God in the flesh (Luke 3:38 - paraphrased)

After Adam sinned, he was no longer [true] Son of God, and God was angry and desired to destroy his creation ... but he relented and gave his son of flesh creation a chance to redeem HIMSELF (redeem mankind!!) IF ANOTHER MAN OF HOLINESS COULD BE FOUND AND SERVE AS A SACRIFICE (Slaughtered Lamb!) : pure blood sacrifice... this is why every year there was an animal sacrifice serving as a placeholder for that perfect Son sacrifice...

As with any good designer, God prepared a contingency plan in case no ‘son of Adam’ was found for the sacrifice. And so it was that, given enough time, and no son of Adam was found for this sacrifice ([King] David coming through nearest), God CREATED a NEW SON (a SECOND - or LAST) Adam, and directed that his name be called ‘Jesus’ (actually it was ‘Joshua’ but we’ve changed it for some seemingly purposeful reason?!!?!)

If you are a thinking person, you will have noted that ONLY THE INERT BODY of Adam was created by the ‘US’... It was a DEAD (not living) BODY... ‘And God breathed the breathe of life into his nostrils and THE MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL!!!

Continuing this theme, and you being wise, will know that the SEED OF A WOMAN is INERT. It is discharged unceremoniously on a monthly basis if not put to a procreative use. Sin, as you know, spiritually, comes from the Male (Adam) because it was to Adam that God gave the command to refrain from the ‘fruit’. So, the impregnating by the Male continues the sin into the offspring thereof!

So, you know that Mary had not been subject to any Male impregnating (was a Virgin) so when God’s Holy Spirit ‘overshadowed the Virgin’ it is certain that ‘the child to be born will be [sinless and] Holy; the Son of God’.

So, you agree that the [creation] of Jesus was the SAME as the [creation] of Adam... hence scriptures calls Jesus, ‘The [second/Last] Adam’... and BOTH are therefore called, ‘SON OF GOD’.

And just for completeness: ‘Son’ means:

• ‘He who does the complete WILL of the Father’
• ‘Why do you say I blaspheme [to say I called myself God] when I only said I was the SON OF GOD...’, Jesus said to the Jews
• ‘Everyone who follows the Spirit of God are Sons [children] of God’, Scriptures says

Holy Angels are ‘[Spirit] Sons’ of God for that definitive reason. Mankind (in Adam and Jesus) was(Adam) / is(Jesus) Flesh Son of God.

Checking back on your statement... I’m pretty glad you acknowledged that Jesus states that God was his ‘Heavenly Father’. It is a testament to truth that anyone who truly believes in YHWH GOD also calls him, ‘Heavenly Father’.

And, as has been pointed out by rrobs, ‘Coming out from God’ is not claiming a PROCREATION. Else we believers are ALL GOD... which you know to be nonsense and certainly, as Jesus was horrified at, A BLASPHEMOUS CLAIM TO BE GOD!!

The ‘prize’ Jesus refers to was to become king over creation. Adam, if he had not sinned, would have been that king as he would have been ‘The Father of mankind’. Jesus, in replacing Adam, chooses, at the judgement seat, those he deems worthy and ‘gives them eternal life’ ... hence Jesus, as prophesy states, becomes, ‘ETERNAL Father’ (Guess what the definition of ‘Father’ is!!!)

Ask yourself these questions:

1. What exactly does that so-called request from Jesus ACTUALLY MEAN??
2. What was the prize - exactly?
3. Why did Jesus ‘appear’ to have lost it and has proven himself now to regain it?
4. Are you claiming Jesus is God?
   1. God is immutable - how did he lose a part of his glory?
   2. God is three (by trinity) and UN-UNITED. How did one of an un-united three de-unit himself to become separate and ensconced in flesh with all its frailties and subject to all such frailties of the flesh - even to not knowing things and not able to do things that God most certainly has no problems doing?
   3. What prize can God receive that he does not ALREADY AND ALWAYS OWN
   4. To become king over creation is surely a DEMOTION if the receiver is ALMIGHTY GOD; king over HEAVEN!!!

What I mean is that Mary conceived Jesus in a miraculous way. She was not married, did not know a man. Matthew 1:23+ is worth a read. I hope you will read it.
"But after he had pondered these things, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to embrace Mary as your wife, for the One conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a Son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins.”22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:23“Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son,
and they will call Him Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”).24When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and embraced Mary as his wife. 25But he had no union with herg until she gave birth to a Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus."

 

[YoursTrue]

I know. I was doing a "what if" thing with YoursTrue.

He thinks John 17:5 says Jesus is God. I never said that. I simply agreed with him what John said about Jesus having glory before the world was. It would be foolish to deny it said that, because it actually says that.

I then proceeded to point out Ephesians, 1:4 which says God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I suggested that both verses are talking about God's foreknowledge and that Jesus didn't literally exist before the creation any more than we literally existed.

I then quoted Romans 4:17 to show that God, "calleth those things which be not as though they were" to further illustrate God's foreknowledge.But

I'm not sure how you read my post and came to the conclusion that I think Jesus is God. I thought I was being clear, but perhaps I need to tune up my writing a bit. In any case, I am among the measly 1.4% of Christians who understand Jesus to be a man, not a god and certainly not some grotesque god-man creature.

I would venture to say that the world is in such a mess directly due to the church worshiping false gods. Look what happened to Israel when they worshiped false gods. It seems like we are going in the same direction. The church needs a revival, starting with an understanding of who God is and who Jesus is. God is the Father and Jesus is His son. How in the world does such an incredibly simple idea get so screwed up in the church?

God bless

I wonder how you figure I said Jesus was God from John 17:5.
We certainly don't want to mix up the terms of God. But Jesus is termed as "a God," in his heavenly state, OR can also be termed Mighty God in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, in terms of understanding. But he is not the ALmighty God. He clearly stated he was the Son of God, he came from heaven, and the Father was greater than he is. He is not part of a trinity of three persons each and all equal to one another. Sorry if this was not clear, thanks for mentioning it so I can possibly clear it up.
John 17:5 - And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
(This does not mean that Jesus was/is "God," equal to his Father. It means, in fact, he was/is NOT. Although given great power.)
Sorry, I see how my previous reply was not related properly.

 

[YoursTrue]

Srrsly?

Yes, I was never Catholic and before I read and studied the Bible I did not follow these things much.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and God choose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
​

Maybe this would help understand how such a thing could be.

Rom 4:17,

(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
​

The glory Jesus had and our holiness was in God's foreknowledge and not literal.

Let's face it, there are some verses that seem to say Jesus is God and others that say he is not. Now, we can't have the Bible contradict itself, so somehow we must make all verses agree.

John 17:5 could be a verse that says Jesus is God. But what about 1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

We have to make these verses agree somehow. I've given you my belief on how to do that in John 17:5 . If we understand that John is speaking about God's foreknowledge, then they fit. But if we leave John as saying Jesus is God, then we need to address 1 Corinthians 8:6 so it says something other than only the Father is God, because that is sure what it seems to say. Do you have any ideas on how that could say anything but the one God is the Father?

Perhaps we could go over other verses that seem to contradict and see how to make them fit. After answering to 1 Corinthians 8:6, give me another verse that seems to say Jesus is God, I'll give my best answer and then give you a verse that seems to say Jesus is not God. Repeat as necessary. Neither of us should be afraid to say, "I don't know" if that is the case.

God bless

Certainly not to contest you, but please do say how you figure John 17:5 might mean that Jesus is God? You're saying what about foreknowledge? That Jesus is God, or that humans are God/gods? Not sure.
Anyway, what does the word god mean to you? I deliberately left off the capital G there, because in general, God with a capital G refers to only one God, not two, and not three. But there are cases that the term 'god' is used not applying to the only true God that Jesus was referring to. So let's go back to John 17:5. I don't see that it implies that Jesus is "God."
"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." Do you think this could mean that Jesus is God? Here's how I read it: Jesus was praying to his heavenly Father, asking God his Father to glorify him (Jesus) alongside, together, however you want to phrase it, with his Father, with the glory Jesus had before the world was.
Yes, I agree the Bible must agree with itself, that is why some people have gone into a deep-er study of it than simply taking everything at "face value."

 

[YoursTrue]

By pre-existing Jesus is meant "Logos per Jn 1:1 (obviously). The man Jesus Christ did not pre-exist before he was born (obviously). Logos is a Greek religious term for something understood as pre-existing. If Jesus did not pre-exist he would not have been called "Logos."



I never said "Jesus was God," I said only that he came from God. Coming from God does not make you God, once you have "come." Yet on the other hand, neither does it divorce you from your origin, such that Christ could say "before Abraham was born I am."


Context is everything. Your context above is the geographic origination of the man.

​

I agree. Jesus is not the Father who is described as "true God."


I am with you on that point. I fear you must have misunderstood me.


It does help if you do not jump to conclusions. Never have I ever stated a belief that Jesus should be labelled "God the son." Moreover Jesus did pre-exist, but not as a man per Jn 1.


I could agree with what you say above, but to say that Jesus didn't pre-exist, if not JW, is classical unitarianism / arianism, which I do not agree with. Unitarianism is a reaction far too far against Trinitarianism, which I oppose as based in the importation of Greek & Egyptian triadism. Jesus did pre-exist. He said so himself over and over again. A merely "idiomatic" usage as to coming from heaven is not made out. He distinguished himself from all other man by saying that they did not come down from heaven, but he did, such that this removes the idiomatic force of words that could otherwise have been used of any of God's annointed, of which there were many, e.g. High Priests, Cyrus etc.

Just so I understand you better, when you say the man Jesus did not pre-exist before he was born, now that we're up to John 17:5, what does this mean to you? That he did not exist before being brought forth as a man, since he says he had glory WITH the Father "before the world was"? So what does that mean to you?
John 17:5 - "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

 

[eik]

Just so I understand you better, when you say the man Jesus did not pre-exist before he was born, now that we're up to John 17:5, what does this mean to you? That he did not exist before being brought forth as a man, since he says he had glory WITH the Father "before the world was"? So what does that mean to you?
John 17:5 - "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

I have made it clear in what I said in other places in the same post: Jesus did pre-exist but as the Logos of God.

 

[Soapy]

I wonder how you figure I said Jesus was God from John 17:5.
We certainly don't want to mix up the terms of God. But Jesus is termed as "a God," in his heavenly state, OR can also be termed Mighty God in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, in terms of understanding. But he is not the ALmighty God. He clearly stated he was the Son of God, he came from heaven, and the Father was greater than he is. He is not part of a trinity of three persons each and all equal to one another. Sorry if this was not clear, thanks for mentioning it so I can possibly clear it up.
John 17:5 - And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
(This does not mean that Jesus was/is "God," equal to his Father. It means, in fact, he was/is NOT. Although given great power.)
Sorry, I see how my previous reply was not related properly.

YoursTrue, a great degree of what you said is the truth. However, you need to understand in deeper meaning the definition of the term, ‘God’, in which you quite rightly distinguish YHWH as ‘Almighty God’, and Jesus as ‘a God’.

I was looking for you to go further but because you said that Jesus came from heaven I understand you are not making your equation fit the solution:

1. It is clear from scriptures that Almighty God said ‘Beside me there is no [other] God’
2. Almighty God said the Israelites are to worship Him alone as their ONLY God (as opposed to pagans who worshipped MANY GOD)
3. Jesus said that his Father was the ‘Only True God’
4. YHWH said that he is ‘God of all whom are called Gods’
5. Jesus says that YHWH called Men of renown who received his (YHWH’s) word, “Gods”
6. The apostles stated: “Though there are many Gods and many Lords, for us there is only ONE GOD, the Father, and ONE Lord, Jesus Christ”
7. ...

Are the verses not suspicious in so much as Jesus is being made to say that he came from heaven, and also that he is claiming preexistence?

Given that YHWH states he is the only God to be worshipped, we should dismiss all references to the trinity claim that Jesus is ALMIGHTY GOD. But further, I have yet to ACTUALLY hearing a trinitarian claim that Jesus is ‘Almighty God’. I have written to them stating this title and they reply with only ‘God’. Could it be that even they know they are being blasphemous and sway from calling Jesus ‘ALMIGHTY GOD’? Interesting... maybe you could try them out yourself..

Jesus, at no time, ever claimed to be ALMIGHTY GOD, and not even ‘God’. But what does ‘GOD’ mean... what does it mean to be ‘God’?

I will let you know: The term ‘God’ is NOTHING FEARFUL in that it SIMPLY MEANS (like):

• Law maker
• Ruler
• The greatest in context
• The most majestic
• The most high
• Sovereign
• ...

The term, ‘God’ is a TITLE... like all majestic, and like sovereign, etc., it refers to a POSITION in context, example:

• Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the YHWH he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. (Deut 4:39)

Do you see that ‘God’ is a position, ... that YHWH is the entity, the Deity, IN THAT POSITION, and the position is IN CONTEXT of Heaven and earth.

It is the ENTITY that is the real element of worshipfulness. Consider that Britain has a MONARCH... We know this monarch by the name: ‘Elizabeth II’. Elizabeth is the person, Monarch is the position in context of Rulership over Britain.

We have no problem understanding this context but when it comes to scriptures we go dolally and put the position before the person... why is this?

It’s simple: because we are to believe in only ONE GOD we do not need to refer to his name, his person. All references to him can be contained in his TITLE. But that is a mistake Trinitarians make when they claim Jesus is ALSO GOD. It is patently clear from all points of life that there can be only one ruler, one monarch, one almighty, one most high... Trinity refers the person, the DEITY, who is our one God, as THREE DEITIES and then, realising they’d GRAVE ERROR, vainly attempts to redact it by claiming the THREE DEITIES are (see definition of ‘God’). You will see I asked sojourner to define ‘God’ and he could not... he tried and realised that to speak the truth means destroying the doctrine of trinity.. BUT extend the request to ANY trinitarian and you will receive equal nonsense or no response from them - try it!!

So, my friend, substitute ‘Gods (in context) with YHWH, the deity. All will become clear as to the reality of what is being spoken (written).

YHWH called MEN, ‘Gods’, because of their mightiness in upholding the word he gave them. They were Judges, prophets, priests, HEROES... for his name. They risked and gave their lives for his sake... believed on him and are written in the book of life.

Jesus (the child to be born: Isaiah prophesied) SHALL BE MIGHTY GOD... You notice the ‘SHALL BE’... A TRUE GOD cannot BECOME (shall be). A TRUE GOD, IS!! And guess what YHWH means... yes, ‘I AM’.. which is to say, ‘I never change... I am immutable’.. and think of this.. an IMMORTAL ALMIGHTY ALLKNOWING ENTITY is COMPLETE ... any CHANGE means ‘was incomplete’.. Think on this: How many times did Jesus CHANGE and will STILL CHANGE before he eventually become COMPLETE - and given the name that is above all makes ‘I AM’ (YHWH).

Don’t be afraid, nor misunderstanding, the name refers to his ETERNAL STATUS.. it doesn’t mean he becomes another ‘God’ over heaven ... Jesus becomes ‘FIRST OVER CREATION’, sovereign and King, ruler, ...GOD, in context, over CREATION’

So, no, he will not be Yhwh God over heaven as YHWH GOD OUR Father (and STILL HIS Father)will be.

And as such, how can jesus be God now if he isTO ACQUIRE Rulership over a mi of kingdom of CREATION?

And, the point of John 17:5? That the RULERSHIP over creation was was the glory that Jesus knew of.. his words only make sense if it says:
“I have completed the task you gave me to do... now give me the reward that was there from the before the foundation of the earth.’

It is impossible to reconcile that Jesus had glory with GOD and then LOST IT and is now begging to get it back: What was Jesus then when he had the glory - If he was A GOD, then YHWH was lying that beside him there was no God ...so come one!! And if he was THE GOD.. that’s an impossibility right there!

 

[Soapy]

I have made it clear in what I said in other places in the same post: Jesus did pre-exist but as the Logos of God.

You may have said it. But speaking untruth, even if well believed, does not count as valid scriptures.

The ‘Logos’ is the ‘the word spoken by YHWH’. This is not a single word but ‘those things YHWH spoke as commands, orders, prophesies, etc’.

Thus, in the beginning YHWH spoke the command (his logos) ‘Let there be light...’

And in John 1:1 we read this as ‘In the beginning was the word’... that created the world. Also, it was YHWH’s word, if was WITH HIM. But check out that ‘was God’, means, ‘MOST POWERFUL’...

• In the beginning was Yhwh’s word
• And YHWH’s word was with YHWH
• AND the word was Powerful, heroic, majestic, sovereign

We note that YHWH also issued a word: ‘Behold my SERVANT whom I have chosen. I will put my spirit on him and he will fulfill all my pleasures and restore the nations.. ‘

Did YHWH’s word get fulfilled? Most certainly.. because ‘... in these last days YHWH has spoken through his Son whom he has anointed...sanctified, and sent out into the world..

The world, is ‘Against sin and immorality’, so Jesus is sent it’s to defy sin and immorality... IT DOES NOT MEAN, ‘Sent into humanity’ - This is the error that trinitarian style believers have wrongly in mind when they read that Jesus ‘came out from God’ ... it actually means, ‘Jesus wasSENT by God’ a seven Jesus says himself...

But then Jesus knew most would not understand him: ‘Why do you not understand my mode of speech ... you are Sons of your Father - he was a liar from the beginning: the Father of the lie!’ (Paraphrased)

 

[eik]

You may have said it. But speaking untruth, even if well believed, does not count as valid scriptures.

What on do you mean by that?

The ‘Logos’ is the ‘the word spoken by YHWH’. This is not a single word but ‘those things YHWH spoke as commands, orders, prophesies, etc’.

Thus, in the beginning YHWH spoke the command (his logos) ‘Let there be light...’

And in John 1:1 we read this as ‘In the beginning was the word’... that created the world. Also, it was YHWH’s word, if was WITH HIM. But check out that ‘was God’, means, ‘MOST POWERFUL’...

• In the beginning was Yhwh’s word
• And YHWH’s word was with YHWH
• AND the word was Powerful, heroic, majestic, sovereign

We note that YHWH also issued a word: ‘Behold my SERVANT whom I have chosen. I will put my spirit on him and he will fulfill all my pleasures and restore the nations.. ‘

Did YHWH’s word get fulfilled? Most certainly.. because ‘... in these last days YHWH has spoken through his Son whom he has anointed...sanctified, and sent out into the world..

You are confusing scripture with the Word. Scripture becomes and gets fulfilled, but the Word of God is conceptually different from scripture as "in the beginning" which scripture was not.

The Word of God acts, and commands. It doesn't fulfill anything except, except as in Jesus' case, scripture (where he was a human).

The world, is ‘Against sin and immorality’, so Jesus is sent it’s to defy sin and immorality... IT DOES NOT MEAN, ‘Sent into humanity’ - This is the error that trinitarian style believers have wrongly in mind when they read that Jesus ‘came out from God’ ... it actually means, ‘Jesus wasSENT by God’ a seven Jesus says himself...

Of course it means ‘Sent into humanity’ but I'll concede only a particular subset of humanity, for he affirmed he was sent to the "lost sheep of Israel" Matt 15:24. If he just had a general aim to defy sin and immorality, he would not have distinguished Jews from Gentiles.

But then Jesus knew most would not understand him: ‘Why do you not understand my mode of speech ... you are Sons of your Father - he was a liar from the beginning: the Father of the lie!’ (Paraphrased)

I hope you're not saying it of me? One can't re-apply the words of Jesus after our own predisposition and use it as an excuse to call everyone else who doesn't agree with us a liar. We need a rather more objective basis for that: i.e. you must be seen to oppose Christ to be a son of the Father of lies, which the Pharisees of his day clearly did.

This was of course the problem with the "orthodox" Trinitarians: they thought to cast everyone who didn't agree with them as liars and worthy of anathemas, but it was totally unjustified because frequently their opponents were not opposed to Christ: cf. the Nestorians who evangelized Asia and obtained many converts.