Jesus - First Born?

[Brian2]

The Son did not pre-exist his existence.

"pre-exist his existence"? No that would be hard to do. But it was the Son through whom God made the earth (Heb 1) so He was there at the creation of the earth.
This Son, who was with God, as the Word, (and Son in Hebrews 1 indicates a living Word) became man and dwelt among the disciples.
You are the one who is denying the truth of many plain passages which show the pre existence of the Son.
That is what happens when we have teachers whom we believe but who teach contrary to the Bible, we end up denying passages which we would otherwise not deny. Our pre existing beliefs can make us say that certain passages must mean something other than what they say.

Because your understanding of the scriptures you post are not correct - you read your doctrine into the meaning.

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
John 6:62 Then what will happen if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.
John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven— the Son of Man.
Micah 5:2.................his goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Speaking of what God said of the Son:
Heb 1:10 And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

And I could go on.
Have you any scriptures that tell us that Jesus was created when God made the man Jesus or does that whole doctrine come from denying the plain meaning of other scriptures?

I never said that God did not send His Son nor that Jesus came from God therefore I haven't denied nor twisted anything - I just don't read the Trinity doctrine INTO scripture.
In your theology, what was Jesus before God sent him to be a man? What was the pre-human Jesus?

The pre human Jesus was the Son of God, the Word, a Spirit in the form of God and who was equal in all ways to His Father (as Heb 1 tells us) except that the Son was and is the Son and so submitted and submits to the will of His Father.
There is just one God and the Son who comes from His Father and is in His Father is one with His Father and so not another god. He was involved in the creation of all things and was and is YHWH, because all things that the Father has belong to Him.
I think I can give scriptures for all that.
I am always amazed when people say they do not deny or twist anything when it is plain that they do. The scriptures I gave about the pre existence of Jesus are a case in point.
But as I say, when we start believing teachers and their interpretations, that is how we see things and interpret them in the scriptures even when others who are looking on are shaking their head in disbelief.
And yes I know, your interpretation is correct and I'm the one who is denying and twisting scriptures.

When I said that before "Within the one true God there are three persons who have a relationship with each other" You responded with - "No that would be Oneness Pentecostalism".

I said "Oneness Pentecostalism" because they are modalists and see God as one, the Father, and Jesus as also the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Father. That is more of a multiple personality scenario.

I don't believe that Jesus was God so yes, I believe God worked in him and strengthened him.
Jesus so totally represented and declared God his Father that he could say: Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.

How can Jesus be anything but Divine if He has the same nature/essence of His Father.
Can someone who is just a man say "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"?
Well I suppose you do think that a mere man can say that and be exactly like God except for his fleshly body.

I believe that Romans 5:19 teaches: For as by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience the many shall be made righteous.

So Jesus paid the ransom price for many and not just one?

 

[amazing grace]

Yes Jesus was able to be tempted because He was a man and had to choose to do what is right. It was not something that happened automatically without the choice and the struggle to overcome the temptation.

So the Son of God is exactly like His Father, spiritually, and because of this He was able to overcome the temptations.
Only God is good and Jesus also was/is good,,,,,,,,,,,,, a spiritual quality.
You can say that this Son of God was not Divine, but it is logically unsound to do that imo.

I don't believe that I have said that Jesus, the Son of God was not divine; i.e. like God but he was/is not God, deity.

Yes, as the human Son of God who was/is not His Father, the only true God, Jesus perfectly reflected God's character, or as I put it, Jesus was/is exactly like His Father, spiritually.

It seems you are changing you wording all around to avoid saying what you truly believe - that Jesus was/is God.

I believe this is what you are actually saying only in a round about way: Yes, (God) as the human Son of God who was/is not His Father, the only true God, Jesus (God, as the human Son of God) perfectly reflected God's character, or as I put it, Jesus (God, as the human Son of God) is exactly like His Father, spiritually. Is that what you really mean to say? IMO, it is logically unsound to do that.

If Jesus is perfectly like His Father spiritually, and can, as a man, sin, why do you think that His Father, if He became a man with the same character, would not be able to sin?

I really don't understand what you are trying to say here? And I can't honestly answer because I can't fathom "God becoming a man"

Jesus is the radiance of the glory of God (Heb 1). I worship God through His Son whom we are to honour like we honour the Father. (John 5:23)

Jesus radiates, reflects the glory of God and I also worship God through his Son. I also honor the Son as I honor the Father for "Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the one who sent him." - each in their respective places - one as the man, Jesus of Nazareth, the one sent; one as the Father, the only true God, the one who sent him.

If the Father became a man with a body, would you continue to worship Him?

Can't truly answer that for it did not happen.

Heb 1:6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.”

I believe this relates to Jesus's resurrection from the dead (the firstborn from the dead, Col. 1:15,18; Rev. 1:5) for Hebrews 2:7 clearly states that when Jesus came the first time he was “a little lower than the angels” ---- as was all mankind. The reason that God told the angels to pay homage to Jesus after his resurrection was due to all that Jesus accomplished by his life and death.

 

[Brian2]

I don't believe that I have said that Jesus, the Son of God was not divine; i.e. like God but he was/is not God, deity.

To me Divine means deity.
If He is exactly like God then He cannot be anything else than deity imo.

It seems you are changing you wording all around to avoid saying what you truly believe - that Jesus was/is God.

I try to be concise and use more Biblical language and not the language of the later church which says things like "God the Son" and "God in the flesh".

I really don't understand what you are trying to say here? And I can't honestly answer because I can't fathom "God becoming a man"

Hmmm, OK.

Can't truly answer that for it did not happen.

Hmmm, OK

I believe this relates to Jesus's resurrection from the dead (the firstborn from the dead, Col. 1:15,18; Rev. 1:5) for Hebrews 2:7 clearly states that when Jesus came the first time he was “a little lower than the angels” ---- as was all mankind. The reason that God told the angels to pay homage to Jesus after his resurrection was due to all that Jesus accomplished by his life and death.

Being lower than the angels is probably why God had to tell the angels to worship Him. He became a man but is still YHWH who became a man. (and I have shown you some places and reasons to think that the scriptures calls Jesus YHWH)

 

[amazing grace]

It's not clear to me why you want Jesus to not have a sin nature when all of His brothers and sisters, whom He has been made like (Heb 2:17) do have a sin nature.

Because if Jesus had a sin nature - he would not have been without blemish and could not have been the Lamb of God.
Heb. 2:14 (paraphrased) The children share in flesh and blood and Jesus likewise (paraplesios - in a similar way) took part of the same things (flesh and blood) . . . Although Jesus was fully human, just like Adam was, he did not have a sin nature like all of us since the fall of Adam. There is no reason to say that Jesus was not like us unless he had a sin nature because mankind was not originally created to have a sin nature -- it is the result of Adam's fall. Heb. 2:17 Jesus "had to be made" like other humans in every way but without the sin nature (v14) in order to have been a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God. Jesus only differed from other people not having the "sin nature"; he did not differ by being some kind of god-man; he was the "last Adam," the man who conquered sin, and he was a faithful high priest to God, not a high priest who was also God.

I know you said that the sin nature would dim the reflection Jesus is of the nature of His Father, and I don't understand how that works and how having a brighter reflection does not mean that it is easier to resist temptation.

I said that the "sin nature"; i.e. rebellion against God dims our being made in God's image.
I never said it was easier for Jesus to resist temptation.

Why wouldn't Mary pass on the sin nature to Jesus if everyone of Adam's children have this sin nature?

The sin nature passed to mankind through one man, Adam. Mary "knew no man".

And, if Jesus is the Word made flesh, then why do you say that Jesus was created in Mary's womb when He existed as a plan or something before that and was just given life as a man in the womb of Mary.

"He existed as a plan" ---- the plan of God for the redemption of mankind is NOT a literal pre-existence. Jesus origin began at his conception and birth.

My Divine Jesus became a man. He remained the Son of God as a man and so exactly like His Father spiritually, but the body means that He had a carnal nature as well as the spiritual nature of His Father. So He always had His body saying, "Look at that, that would be/feel nice to have (or take, or do)".

Again, let's word this in the way you truly mean it: My divine Jesus (God) became a man. He remained the Son of God (God) and so exactly like His Father (God) spiritually, . . . . If that makes sense to you, then so be it.
The human being, Jesus, was tempted/tested to disobey God.

So His inner man had to take control and say no, or whatever it took.

The human being, Jesus, was tempted/tested to disobey God.

If the Father became a man, the same thing would happen and the Father would have to take control over His new carnal nature.

"If the Father (God) became a man, the same thing would happen, and the Father (God) would have to take control over his new carnal nature." - Again if that makes sense to you, so be it.

It is at the resurrection when that ceases to be an issue, when we get the spiritual body, and that means that our body will not be carnal and will be able to be controlled by our spirit.

Yes, Jesus perfectly knew His Father because they have spent time together (since time began, about 14.5 billion years I hear).

Yes the Son is exactly like His Father.

Jesus perfectly reflects the majesty of God but is not God.

You say this human who is exactly like God is just a man and not Divine.

Again, I believe you are switching the word "divine" for "deity". . . . "exactly like" does not mean "identical".

I follow what the Bible tells us and say that nobody is like YHWH or to be compared to YHWH.
The Son and Father are one.

Yep, and scripture tells us that God is not a man but Jesus was a man whom God (Yahweh) worked in and through him with mighty works, signs and wonders.
Yep, the Son and the Father are one just as we are to be one with them.

No I do not believe in the immortal soul, I believe God can destroy the soul in Gehenna, and that would be the second death.

Okay.

Adam died physically but that did not mean destruction, non existence. Hades/Sheol comes first and then the final judgement where we people are judged and then total death might happen, where the body and soul are destroyed.

Yes, Adam died as in no existence . . . in the grave, until the resurrection. The resurrection of the dead, the final judgment --- the righteous to life and the unrighteous to the second death. . . . . but that is a whole other subject.

But the thing is that the death of Jesus body does not mean that He went out of existence, or that His soul died.

Jesus died . . . God raised him from the dead - if not - we have no reconciliation, we have no mediator, we have no high priest, we have no new covenant, we have no salvation.

Actually if we each went out of existence, body and soul, at the death of the body, we would have to be re created,,,,,,,,,,,,,, it would not be a resurrection of the same person, the person who would be re created would be just a copy of the same person.

We die - "it is sown a natural body"; buried. "It is raised a spiritual body"; resurrection.

Yes, and Jesus dying does not mean going out of existence.

Did Jesus really die or not?

Amen

If the temptations were nothing to Jesus that would mean that He was not a man, did not have a carnal nature.

I never said the temptations were nothing to Jesus.

If God cannot sin then Jesus cannot sin.--- This means that Jesus is exactly like His Father. That is something you should agree with.

If I believed that Jesus was God then I probably would agree. Being exactly like God his Father as in perfectly portraying and representing God his Father does not mean identical. "If God cannot sin then Jesus cannot sin" - then what purpose were the temptations? Apparently, Satan thought he could trip Jesus up in some way?

It was important that Jesus was a man (and a man is tempted because of his carnal nature) and it was important that He overcame the temptation so that He could be the spotless Lamb of God.

Yes, Jesus was a man. The first Adam, a man, sinned against God and therefore man owed a debt to God, and a man had to atone for mankind's sin. Jesus was the spotless Lamb of God being tempted in all things yet without sin.

We come to Jesus for forgiveness and to be disciples and changed into His image (the perfect man) and for Him to be an example for us of obedience to God even through physical suffering and death.

I suppose you just go back to the idea that "God is not a liar and does not change His mind" (Numbers 23:19) and say that means that God was not a man then and can never become a man. But it does not say "Can never become a man" and it does not speak about the Son of God, whom Hebrews 1 tells us is exactly like God and was there creating the world with God-----and who inherits the name YHWH, which was His all along anyway (John 16:15) But all this must be trinitarian double talk to you but the point is that the one who is exactly like His Father should be able to resist temptation as a man.

True, God is not a liar but there are scriptural references wherein God did change his mind - the point is God is NOT a man. In Hosea God says: "for I am God and not a man" . . . God is not a man and does not carry the characteristics of man. Being "like" someone is not being "identical".
Jesus did not inherit the name "Yahweh". Jesus resisted temptation through obedience to "It is written".

only because of who he is that he resisted---That means that being the Son of God who is exactly like His Father means that He was going to put up with anything rather than sin/ not do the will of His Father. The only reason He is exactly like God is because He is the Son of God with the same nature as God. Nobody else is good enough to do what Jesus did, only the one who is exactly like God and who is YHWH who left His Godship behind in order to become and live as a humble man.
His Father was not there resisting temptation for Him. Even in the wilderness the angels came to minister to and strengthen Him only after the temptations.

"only because of who he is that he resisted" --- IOW, he only resisted temptation because he was God. Of course, being God, he would resist temptation because God cannot be tempted with evil; i.e. to do wrong. So, the temptations were pointless.

 

[amazing grace]

"pre-exist his existence"? No that would be hard to do.

Isn't that what you mean by Jesus's "pre-human existence"?

But it was the Son through whom God made the earth (Heb 1) so He was there at the creation of the earth.

Not the Genesis creation but the creation of the world to come.

This Son, who was with God, as the Word, (and Son in Hebrews 1 indicates a living Word) became man and dwelt among the disciples.
You are the one who is denying the truth of many plain passages which show the pre existence of the Son.
That is what happens when we have teachers whom we believe but who teach contrary to the Bible, we end up denying passages which we would otherwise not deny. Our pre existing beliefs can make us say that certain passages must mean something other than what they say.

I do not deny the truth of many plain passages, I just do not read the idea of a trinity into the passages. Furthermore, I do not deny any passage of scripture. My pre-existing beliefs were trinitarian.

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven.

Yes, Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven. Jesus did not say that "he was God came down from heaven" (that would be reading INTO the scripture something that is not there); he is saying that he came from heaven, meaning that He came from God; God was his source.
It's the same concept when used in James 1:17 that every good gift is “from above” and “comes down” from God and should be understood in the same manner - God is the source of Jesus Christ.

John 6:62 Then what will happen if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.
John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven— the Son of Man.
Micah 5:2.................his goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Speaking of what God said of the Son:
Heb 1:10 And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

And I could go on.
Have you any scriptures that tell us that Jesus was created when God made the man Jesus or does that whole doctrine come from denying the plain meaning of other scriptures?

We have been through these scriptures so I do not see the need to reiterate what has already been said. If these verses are viewed with "trinitarian glasses" then the trinity can be read INTO the scriptures which is not proper exegesis.
No, there is not a verse that clearly and implicitly say Jesus was created BUT we know that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High and there are verses that clearly and implicitly state Jesus was a man; that God is not a man; that Jesus was sent by God; came from God, etc. Neither are there any verses that clearly and implicitly says that Jesus is God become a man; God come in the flesh; the term god-man; nor 100%God/100% man, etc.

The pre human Jesus was the Son of God, the Word, a Spirit in the form of God and who was equal in all ways to His Father (as Heb 1 tells us) except that the Son was and is the Son and so submitted and submits to the will of His Father.
There is just one God and the Son who comes from His Father and is in His Father is one with His Father and so not another god. He was involved in the creation of all things and was and is YHWH, because all things that the Father has belong to Him.
I think I can give scriptures for all that.

That does not answer the question I asked: What was Jesus before God sent him to be a man? What was the pre-human Jesus?

I am always amazed when people say they do not deny or twist anything when it is plain that they do. The scriptures I gave about the pre existence of Jesus are a case in point.
But as I say, when we start believing teachers and their interpretations, that is how we see things and interpret them in the scriptures even when others who are looking on are shaking their head in disbelief.
And yes I know, your interpretation is correct and I'm the one who is denying and twisting scriptures.

I was going to say that I could say the same thing about you!!!! But I really do try my best not to be derogatory towards other in my responses.

I said "Oneness Pentecostalism" because they are modalists and see God as one, the Father, and Jesus as also the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Father. That is more of a multiple personality scenario.

Dissociative identity disorder. Formerly known as multiple personality disorder, this disorder is characterized by "switching" to alternate identities. You may feel the presence of two or more people talking or living inside your head, and you may feel as though you're possessed by other identities. - Jesus being god-man - having a human nature and a divine nature - being both man and God at the same time; two identities.

How can Jesus be anything but Divine if He has the same nature/essence of His Father.
Can someone who is just a man say "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"?
Well I suppose you do think that a mere man can say that and be exactly like God except for his fleshly body.

Jesus had the same characteristics as God his Father --- that does not make him deity, God. Jesus was not "just a man" nor a "mere man" but one who truly lived, breathed, and walked as a human being who gave his life so that we could live - who paid the price for our sins - who became our mediator - who reconciled us back to God - shed his blood to justify us-----I could go on and on.

So Jesus paid the ransom price for many and not just one?

I believe that what the word of God says in Romans 5:19 . . . And that is what he did.

 

[amazing grace]

To me Divine means deity.
If He is exactly like God then He cannot be anything else than deity imo.

I know.

I try to be concise and use more Biblical language and not the language of the later church which says things like "God the Son" and "God in the flesh".

Just because you do not use the language --- you still mean the same thing.

Hmmm, OK.

Hmmm, OK

Being lower than the angels is probably why God had to tell the angels to worship Him. He became a man but is still YHWH who became a man. (and I have shown you some places and reasons to think that the scriptures calls Jesus YHWH)

These verses in Heb. 2:5-8 are pulled from Ps. 8:4-8 which is a Messianic prophecy. Actually, these verses confirm that Jesus was a man, a mortal man who like all mankind was made a little lower than the angels but Jesus, now has been crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death (v9) therefore when God brought the firstborn into the world (through resurrection; the firstborn from the dead) having exalted Jesus to His own right hand - the angels are told to worship him.

 

[Brian2]

I know.

And it is not just my opinion that says if someone is exactly like God then He cannot be anything else but deity.
The Bible tells us that also. The following passage shows that nobody is like YHWH. Then in the New Testament we find out that Jesus is exactly like YHWH even down to the heavens being the work of the Son's hands.
Isa 40: 25 To whom then will you compare me,
that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes on high and see:
who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
calling them all by name;
by the greatness of his might
and because he is strong in power,
not one is missing.
27 Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord,
and my right is disregarded by my God”?
28 Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is jthe everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.

Just because you do not use the language --- you still mean the same thing.

I can't trick you. Don't start getting confused and telling me I have said that Jesus is the Father or something like that,,,,,,,,,,,,, as @Soapy does.

These verses in Heb. 2:5-8 are pulled from Ps. 8:4-8 which is a Messianic prophecy. Actually, these verses confirm that Jesus was a man, a mortal man who like all mankind was made a little lower than the angels but Jesus, now has been crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death (v9) therefore when God brought the firstborn into the world (through resurrection; the firstborn from the dead) having exalted Jesus to His own right hand - the angels are told to worship him.

Could be, but since Jesus had not been to see the Father and be crowned with glory and honour until after His resurrection, I would think that it is speaking about the birth of Jesus.

 

[Brian2]

Isn't that what you mean by Jesus's "pre-human existence"?

If you deny that Jesus came from heaven and was with God in the beginning and had a hand in creating the universe then you might think that I am saying that Jesus existed before His existence. But as you know, what I am saying is that there was the living Word who became a man.
You say that the dead Word was the pre human existence of Jesus and I recognise that this Word was alive with God and doing stuff before becoming a man.

Not the Genesis creation but the creation of the world to come.

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
I presume you know what the past tense is and that the above verse says that God created the world through the Son in the past,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the Genesis creation.
The New Heavens and New Earth are yet to be made.

I do not deny the truth of many plain passages, I just do not read the idea of a trinity into the passages. Furthermore, I do not deny any passage of scripture. My pre-existing beliefs were trinitarian.

Why throw out the pre existing beliefs which are clearly shown in the Bible, just because you reject the trinity?

Yes, Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven. Jesus did not say that "he was God came down from heaven" (that would be reading INTO the scripture something that is not there); he is saying that he came from heaven, meaning that He came from God; God was his source.
It's the same concept when used in James 1:17 that every good gift is “from above” and “comes down” from God and should be understood in the same manner - God is the source of Jesus Christ.

OK so you see that it is legitimate to say that "from heaven" means "from God" and then to throw out the "from heaven" and treat it as if it does not exist in the scriptures.

We have been through these scriptures so I do not see the need to reiterate what has already been said. If these verses are viewed with "trinitarian glasses" then the trinity can be read INTO the scriptures which is not proper exegesis.

As I said, you don't need to be a trinitarian to see the plain meaning of those verses. Not wanting to be derogatory but it's really just a matter of being able to understand English, and in some of those verses you are just denying what the plain English says, eg in the passages about Jesus having been there and through whom the world, the heavens, all things were made, were the works of His hands etc. You have to have a mind fog to say that is speaking about the New Heaven and New Earth.

No, there is not a verse that clearly and implicitly say Jesus was created BUT we know that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High and there are verses that clearly and implicitly state Jesus was a man; that God is not a man; that Jesus was sent by God; came from God, etc. Neither are there any verses that clearly and implicitly says that Jesus is God become a man; God come in the flesh; the term god-man; nor 100%God/100% man, etc.

What we know is that Jesus was sent from heaven and that His origins are in the days of eternity and that He is exactly like YHWH and was there at the creation and so is YHWH and that He is coming to judge the earth so must be YHWH who is coming to judge the earth, that He truly became a man and did not use the powers of His Godhood while a man. What we know is that people and angels worshipped Jesus and Thomas called Him God and the Jewish teachers believed He was making Himself equal to God and making Himself God, that the epistles call Jesus "our God and Saviour", that Revelation tells us Jesus is Almighty God, that John 1 tells us He is God etc etc
So all this against no verses that say Jesus was created.
In fact the verses that say that ALL THINGS were created through Him, show us that Jesus Himself cannot have been one of those created things.

That does not answer the question I asked: What was Jesus before God sent him to be a man? What was the pre-human Jesus?

But I said who and what He was, what more are you after?

I was going to say that I could say the same thing about you!!!! But I really do try my best not to be derogatory towards other in my responses.

Yes it is good to be honest without being too over the top derogatory. So honest for me is telling you what certain verses are saying and pointing out that you are saying they mean what they do not say and so you are blinded. But of course I realise that if you are blinded to the real meaning you won't be able to see what the real meaning is.
eg if I point out that the passages which speak about Jesus having been there at the creation are in the past tense, I don't know if you can see that or not. Many times I point out such things and I don't know if they can see them or not and I don't even get a response which tells me for example that "yes those verses are in the past tense but I want to deny that and go with the teachings of my teachers anyway". So yes I guess that sort of response is not going to come easily, and I just have to go on assuming that you do not see the past tense and the implications as to what creation is being spoken about.

Dissociative identity disorder. Formerly known as multiple personality disorder, this disorder is characterized by "switching" to alternate identities. You may feel the presence of two or more people talking or living inside your head, and you may feel as though you're possessed by other identities. - Jesus being god-man - having a human nature and a divine nature - being both man and God at the same time; two identities.

Well Jesus can be both a man and the Divine Son of God at the same time, but in Oneness Pentecostalism the Son on earth is actually the Father who has come to earth as His own Son and then prays to the Father (himself) in heaven while being on earth as the Son. Now that is a strange belief and more like dissociative identity disorder. If you think the trinity is like that then you are confused about what the trinity doctrine is.

Jesus had the same characteristics as God his Father --- that does not make him deity, God. Jesus was not "just a man" nor a "mere man" but one who truly lived, breathed, and walked as a human being who gave his life so that we could live - who paid the price for our sins - who became our mediator - who reconciled us back to God - shed his blood to justify us-----I could go on and on.

I believe that what the word of God says in Romans 5:19 . . . And that is what he did.

As I have pointed out, being exactly like YHWH and having been there at creation, creating the heavens and earth etc does make someone YHWH, because nobody is like YHWH who has done those things.
And yes Jesus did truly live, breathed and walked as a human being who gave his life so that we could live. He paid the price for our sins,,,,,,,,,,,, something a mere man cannot do.
Psalm 49:7 Truly no man can ransom another,
or give to God the price of his life,
8 for rthe ransom of their life is costly
and can never suffice,
9 that he should live on forever
and snever see the pit.

God values His Son far above the price for one human life and so He was about to pay the ransom for all humanity.
He became the mediator between God and man and is both God and man, the perfect mediator.

 

[amazing grace]

And it is not just my opinion that says if someone is exactly like God then He cannot be anything else but deity.
The Bible tells us that also. The following passage shows that nobody is like YHWH. Then in the New Testament we find out that Jesus is exactly like YHWH even down to the heavens being the work of the Son's hands.
Isa 40: 25 To whom then will you compare me,
that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes on high and see:
who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
calling them all by name;
by the greatness of his might
and because he is strong in power,
not one is missing.
27 Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord,
and my right is disregarded by my God”?
28 Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is jthe everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.

Jesus is not EXACTLY like Yahweh.
"The heavens are the works of the Son's hands"?
Jesus is not the "everlasting" God.

I can't trick you. Don't start getting confused and telling me I have said that Jesus is the Father or something like that,,,,,,,,,,,,, as @Soapy does.

I know you do not say that Jesus is the Father - BUT logically speaking if Jesus is God and the Father is the only true God and "I and the Father are one" which according to you means "one thing" then wouldn't Jesus have to be the Father?

Could be, but since Jesus had not been to see the Father and be crowned with glory and honour until after His resurrection, I would think that it is speaking about the birth of Jesus.

At his birth, Jesus was as all humanity - a little lower than the angels - "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, (now) crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death" . . .(Heb. 1:9) - so it was after Jesus death and resurrection, after making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High when Jesus became "much superior to angels" (Heb. 1:4). At this time when God brought his firstborn into the world through resurrection [Jesus being the firstborn from the dead] "Let all God's angels worship him."

Have a good night . . .

 

[Brian2]

Because if Jesus had a sin nature - he would not have been without blemish and could not have been the Lamb of God.
Heb. 2:14 (paraphrased) The children share in flesh and blood and Jesus likewise (paraplesios - in a similar way) took part of the same things (flesh and blood) . . . Although Jesus was fully human, just like Adam was, he did not have a sin nature like all of us since the fall of Adam. There is no reason to say that Jesus was not like us unless he had a sin nature because mankind was not originally created to have a sin nature -- it is the result of Adam's fall. Heb. 2:17 Jesus "had to be made" like other humans in every way but without the sin nature (v14) in order to have been a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God. Jesus only differed from other people not having the "sin nature"; he did not differ by being some kind of god-man; he was the "last Adam," the man who conquered sin, and he was a faithful high priest to God, not a high priest who was also God.

Why does having a sin nature mean that He had a blemish and so could not have been the Lamb of God? Isn't a sin nature just a propensity to sin. Or do you see it as a fault, like a sin? How is something that someone is born with, a fault, a sin? I might have a sin nature in that I get angry easily or want to take things that are not mine, but these are not sins unless I act on that nature.
Jesus the faithful High Priest is also Jesus the sacrifice that is made to God and is also YHWH to whom the sacrifice is made.
God is our only saviour and has done it all.

I said that the "sin nature"; i.e. rebellion against God dims our being made in God's image.
I never said it was easier for Jesus to resist temptation.

If having a sin nature means we are not in God's image then not having a sin nature means that we can be in God's image.
It does sound like that makes it easier to resist temptation. IMO it is only the perfect image of God in Christ which made it possible for Jesus to resist temptation all His life.
But you have Jesus with the perfect image of God in Him and God's help to resist temptation also.

The sin nature passed to mankind through one man, Adam. Mary "knew no man".

So you think that it the sin nature only gets passed down through the male side.
But Mary had a sin nature, so why couldn't she pass that on?

"He existed as a plan" ---- the plan of God for the redemption of mankind is NOT a literal pre-existence. Jesus origin began at his conception and birth.

That is a bit of a fluff around and selecting a meaning from a number of possible definitions of "the Word" which we have from those days.
Not only from the rest of the context of John 1 but also from the other things said about Jesus, the Son in the NT, we can see that the definition that your teachers chose is a load of crap and that Jesus did pre exist as a living being through whom God created everything.
I think it is better to start with the plain meaning of other passages and not bother with an obvious pick and choose about the definition of the Word and then have the need to deny the other plain meaning scriptures to suite your choice of definition for the Word.

Again, let's word this in the way you truly mean it: My divine Jesus (God) became a man. He remained the Son of God (God) and so exactly like His Father (God) spiritually, . . . . If that makes sense to you, then so be it.
The human being, Jesus, was tempted/tested to disobey God.

So you have nothing to say about my explanation of why the Divine Jesus could have been tempted?
The Son is and was distinct from His Father before coming to earth, but what you deny is the oneness of them both. The Father and Son were one as well as being distinct. From eternity they were one God with the Father being the source of the Son.

The human being, Jesus, was tempted/tested to disobey God.

Yes, and when the human being @amazing grace is tempted that is the carnal nature wanting something which is against God's will, and when you overcome temptation, that is your inner man telling your carnal nature, body and mind, to pull it's head in and that you aren't going to let it dictate what you do. Same with Jesus whose inner man was/is exactly like God.

Again, I believe you are switching the word "divine" for "deity". . . . "exactly like" does not mean "identical".

Yes I think I have said that "divine" means "deity".
How is Jesus not exactly like, identical, to God His Father. Isn't that what Heb 1 tells us, isn't that what Jesus tells us when He said to Philip that when he saw Him (Jesus) he was seeing the Father.

Yep, and scripture tells us that God is not a man but Jesus was a man whom God (Yahweh) worked in and through him with mighty works, signs and wonders.
Yep, the Son and the Father are one just as we are to be one with them.

The scripture tells us that the man Jesus is comparable to YHWH and was there creating the universe. So this man Jesus must be YHWH as well as being a man.
And NO, you are on purpose misunderstanding the meaning of Numbers 23:19 so that you can say that God cannot become a man. That is called twisting the scriptures imo.

Yes, Adam died as in no existence . . . in the grave, until the resurrection. The resurrection of the dead, the final judgment --- the righteous to life and the unrighteous to the second death. . . . . but that is a whole other subject.

It is a whole other subject but subjects are related in the Bible and these are related.
As I have said, if physical death leads to non existence that not only denies what Jesus said (Matt 10:28 and Jesus and the Bible in other places also) but means that the resurrection is not a resurrection but the making of a copy of us and it means that Jesus could not have been God because someone who is God cannot go out of existence.
Even Ecclesiastes and Psalms does not tell us that the dead go out of existence, it is a doctrine that, like the non pre existence of Jesus, is a made up doctrine which goes against the Biblical teaching.

Jesus died . . . God raised him from the dead - if not - we have no reconciliation, we have no mediator, we have no high priest, we have no new covenant, we have no salvation.

Yep, but your concept of what death is, is not Biblical imo.

We die - "it is sown a natural body"; buried. "It is raised a spiritual body"; resurrection.

We are more than our body. As Jesus said, out physical body can die but our soul does not die when our body dies.
Maybe you don't think we are more than just a body with a spirit in it which is no more than a spark of life that can be extinguished at death.

Did Jesus really die or not?

Yes, did Jesus go out of existence at the death of His body or not?

I never said the temptations were nothing to Jesus.

You did say that if Jesus was God, then the temptations were not real.
But you ignored the carnal side of the man Jesus and seem to think that if He was God in the flesh then He cannot have been a man (God is not a man after all)
Wow the web of deceit and misinterpretation of scriptures from your teachers, of necessity has to be wide.

If I believed that Jesus was God then I probably would agree. Being exactly like God his Father as in perfectly portraying and representing God his Father does not mean identical. "If God cannot sin then Jesus cannot sin" - then what purpose were the temptations? Apparently, Satan thought he could trip Jesus up in some way?

Apparently Satan is a desperate dude and we know is a being full of pride and I would put nothing past him. He thinks he might be able to avoid the judgement somehow and is desperate to do it if at all possible. Any subtle trick to get Jesus to do any little thing wrong would probably save his own butt and stop the plan of salvation also.
It would be surprising if Satan allowed Jesus to waltz through life without challenges to His righteousness and etc.

True, God is not a liar but there are scriptural references wherein God did change his mind - the point is God is NOT a man. In Hosea God says: "for I am God and not a man" . . . God is not a man and does not carry the characteristics of man. Being "like" someone is not being "identical".
Jesus did not inherit the name "Yahweh". Jesus resisted temptation through obedience to "It is written".

I see God as knowing all the things He is going to do in the future but at the same time as traveling through time with us and making decisions based on what has happened. He is not fickle in those decisions like humans might be, and does not go back on the decisions unless there is a change of circumstance and God makes another decision based on the new circumstance. (eg the illness of Hezekiah -Isa 38- in which God changed His mind because of the new circumstances of Hezekiah's repentance)
No the point is not that "God is not a man", the point is that God is not fickle or a liar.
The point is that the scripture does not say that God cannot become a man.
The point is that if God did become a man, He would still be God and would not be fickle or a liar,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but men are fickle and liars,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, not so the man who is the Holy One of Israel, the Son of God who is God as a man and who is exactly like His Father, identical to His Father, if we saw Jesus we would be seeing the Father, they are so much alike.

"only because of who he is that he resisted" --- IOW, he only resisted temptation because he was God. Of course, being God, he would resist temptation because God cannot be tempted with evil; i.e. to do wrong. So, the temptations were pointless.

The temptations ended up showing the righteousness of Jesus and so that He was/is perfectly good and so is God, and it also shows that His Father, God, whom Jesus is the Son of, is also righteous. It glorified God.

 

[amazing grace]

If you deny that Jesus came from heaven and was with God in the beginning and had a hand in creating the universe then you might think that I am saying that Jesus existed before His existence. But as you know, what I am saying is that there was the living Word who became a man.

I do believe that Jesus came from heaven; i.e. came from God. I do not believe he was literally with God nor do I believe he had a hand in creating the heavens and earth. The word of God is not a "who". Yes, the word of God became flesh; a man.

You say that the dead Word was the pre human existence of Jesus and I recognise that this Word was alive with God and doing stuff before becoming a man.

I haven't ever posted the words: "You say that the dead word was the pre-human existence of Jesus".
I recognize that the logos, the word is not about an eternal being in addition to God the Father.

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
I presume you know what the past tense is and that the above verse says that God created the world through the Son in the past,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the Genesis creation.
The New Heavens and New Earth are yet to be made.

Nope, but we have thoroughly exhausted this subject. Yes, I see that "created" is in the past tense but we have this to consider - There is a literary technique used in the Bible that describes future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they have already happened. The new heavens and new earth are being prepared - "I go to prepare a place for you" . . . (John 14:3)

Why throw out the pre existing beliefs which are clearly shown in the Bible, just because you reject the trinity?

The concept of pre-existence is just one of the reasons I rejected the trinity.

OK so you see that it is legitimate to say that "from heaven" means "from God" and then to throw out the "from heaven" and treat it as if it does not exist in the scriptures.

Nope, things from heaven are from God. Just as "Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: 'He (God) gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father (God) gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he (Jesus) who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (John 6) IOW - God gave the manna; God gave the true bread (Jesus) and Jesus gives life to the world.

As I said, you don't need to be a trinitarian to see the plain meaning of those verses. Not wanting to be derogatory but it's really just a matter of being able to understand English, and in some of those verses you are just denying what the plain English says, eg in the passages about Jesus having been there and through whom the world, the heavens, all things were made, were the works of His hands etc. You have to have a mind fog to say that is speaking about the New Heaven and New Earth.

There is a lot more to the Bible than just reading but studying has to be involved - the background and culture of people; the definition of words as to what and how they were used in the culture of that time; figures of speech employed and other literary devices used in the writing of the Bible. No "mind fog"!

What we know is that Jesus was sent from heaven and that His origins are in the days of eternity and that He is exactly like YHWH and was there at the creation and so is YHWH and that He is coming to judge the earth so must be YHWH who is coming to judge the earth, that He truly became a man and did not use the powers of His Godhood while a man. What we know is that people and angels worshipped Jesus and Thomas called Him God and the Jewish teachers believed He was making Himself equal to God and making Himself God, that the epistles call Jesus "our God and Saviour", that Revelation tells us Jesus is Almighty God, that John 1 tells us He is God etc etc
So all this against no verses that say Jesus was created.
In fact the verses that say that ALL THINGS were created through Him, show us that Jesus Himself cannot have been one of those created things.

But I said who and what He was, what more are you after?

Okay, that is what you say and what you understand them to be saying - I see in scripture that Jesus had a genesis, an origin, a beginning - not a pre-beginning.

Yes it is good to be honest without being too over the top derogatory. So honest for me is telling you what certain verses are saying and pointing out that you are saying they mean what they do not say and so you are blinded. But of course I realise that if you are blinded to the real meaning you won't be able to see what the real meaning is.
eg if I point out that the passages which speak about Jesus having been there at the creation are in the past tense, I don't know if you can see that or not. Many times I point out such things and I don't know if they can see them or not and I don't even get a response which tells me for example that "yes those verses are in the past tense but I want to deny that and go with the teachings of my teachers anyway". So yes I guess that sort of response is not going to come easily, and I just have to go on assuming that you do not see the past tense and the implications as to what creation is being spoken about.

The thing is I do see which "creation" is being spoken about - which "beginning" is being spoken about. And when I point out that there were no chapters and verse in the original text - and I say that Hebrew 2:5 is part of the context and clearly states "not to the angels that God subjected the world to come of which we are speaking" - you say that is not part of the context, that is 6,7,8 (how ever many) verses later!

Well Jesus can be both a man and the Divine Son of God at the same time, but in Oneness Pentecostalism the Son on earth is actually the Father who has come to earth as His own Son and then prays to the Father (himself) in heaven while being on earth as the Son. Now that is a strange belief and more like dissociative identity disorder. If you think the trinity is like that then you are confused about what the trinity doctrine is.

I am not confused about the doctrine of the Trinity. No, Jesus cannot be both a man and God at the same time. The Creator is not His created beings.

As I have pointed out, being exactly like YHWH and having been there at creation, creating the heavens and earth etc does make someone YHWH, because nobody is like YHWH who has done those things.
And yes Jesus did truly live, breathed and walked as a human being who gave his life so that we could live. He paid the price for our sins,,,,,,,,,,,, something a mere man cannot do.
Psalm 49:7 Truly no man can ransom another,
or give to God the price of his life,
8 for rthe ransom of their life is costly
and can never suffice,
9 that he should live on forever
and snever see the pit.

God values His Son far above the price for one human life and so He was about to pay the ransom for all humanity.
He became the mediator between God and man and is both God and man, the perfect mediator.

Psalm 49:7 There is no price, as in an amount of money, that can ransom man and give him eternal life. (v6 - those who trust in their wealth and boast in the abundance of their riches; i.e. not trusting in God but in wealth and riches) It took another to give his life for the life of others.

God sent his only begotten Son so that those who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life; Jesus Christ gave his life so that those that believe in him should have eternal life.

A mediator is a go-between - someone who stands between two parties in conflict and petitions on their behalf. God - Jesus - man - it is Jesus who is our intercessor who intercedes on our behalf.

Later . . . got things to do this morning!

 

[Brian2]

Jesus is not EXACTLY like Yahweh.

Exact imprint of nature, shines with same glory, can do anything the Father does, has all power and authority in heaven and earth................ how is Jesus not exactly like YHWH. And remember that if He is exactly like YHWH then He is YHWH.

"The heavens are the works of the Son's hands"?

Heb 1:10. Yes it says that the Son laid (past tense) the foundations of the earth and the heavens are (so the heavens that now exist) the work of His hands.

Jesus is not the "everlasting" God.

He is eternal father (Isa 9:6) He was in the beginning with God, (that implies that He was always with God in timelessness and John 1:1 goes on to say that He was God. And it says elsewhere in John 1 that He is God. Micah 5:2 implies from eternity (the days of everlasting)
Titus 2:13 as we await the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
He appears to be our everlasting God.

I know you do not say that Jesus is the Father - BUT logically speaking if Jesus is God and the Father is the only true God and "I and the Father are one" which according to you means "one thing" then wouldn't Jesus have to be the Father?

No.
The Father and Son are one thing and the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. So the Son is in the one true God.
If I see the Son I am seeing the Father who is in Him and whom the Son exactly like.
If I saw the Father I would be seeing the Son who is in Him and whom the Father is exactly like.
One is a copy of the other and you cannot tell by looking it seems. You need to ask who is who.
The Father is the only true God and He and the Son are united as one God.
2 beings exactly alike but not 2 Gods, one God because they are united and one is the Son of the other and has been from eternity, from the beginning of time.
I don't know how to explain it, and I don't think we are required to be able to explain it, but if I say what the Bible says, how can I go wrong.

At his birth, Jesus was as all humanity - a little lower than the angels - "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, (now) crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death" . . .(Heb. 1:9) - so it was after Jesus death and resurrection, after making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High when Jesus became "much superior to angels" (Heb. 1:4). At this time when God brought his firstborn into the world through resurrection [Jesus being the firstborn from the dead] "Let all God's angels worship him."

When did God bring His firstborn into the world after the resurrection. That happened when Jesus was conceived and born. The angels had to be told whom He was I suppose. He was lesser in power than they were but greater because of whom He was, the Son of God. So they worshipped Him even when He was not as powerful.

Have a good night . . .

Thanks, I can't wait to jump into a warm bed.

 

[amazing grace]

Why does having a sin nature mean that He had a blemish and so could not have been the Lamb of God? Isn't a sin nature just a propensity to sin. Or do you see it as a fault, like a sin? How is something that someone is born with, a fault, a sin? I might have a sin nature in that I get angry easily or want to take things that are not mine, but these are not sins unless I act on that nature.

Mankind was not created to have a "sin nature" it is a flaw, a blemish. Since Adam's fall, all men have the "sin nature" EXCEPT Jesus; all are considered dead in trespasses and sins.

Jesus the faithful High Priest is also Jesus the sacrifice that is made to God and is also YHWH to whom the sacrifice is made.
God is our only saviour and has done it all.

In the OT, what was the purpose of the High Priest? Wasn't it the job of the High Priest to enter the holy of holies with the sacrifices prepared for atonement and petition God for the forgiveness of Israel's sins? Jesus is now our High Priest, our intercessor and mediator who petitions God on our behalf.
God is our Savior in that He is the originator of the plan of salvation. Jesus is our Savior in that he was sent by God to fulfill that plan.

If having a sin nature means we are not in God's image then not having a sin nature means that we can be in God's image.
It does sound like that makes it easier to resist temptation. IMO it is only the perfect image of God in Christ which made it possible for Jesus to resist temptation all His life.
But you have Jesus with the perfect image of God in Him and God's help to resist temptation also.

We have a sin nature but it did not do away with us being made in the image of God - we just don't reflect God as perfectly as we would if we didn't have the sin nature. If we did not retain the image of God to some degree - can you imagine the evil that would be in the world, even more so than now?
Wasn't Jesus baptized and the heavens opened and the Spirit of God descended like a dove and came to rest on him? THEN the Spirit lead him into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil? What helps us resist temptation? Being born again of the Spirit through faith and trust in Jesus Christ. So, in the same manner we resist temptation with God's strength dwelling; Jesus also resisted temptation with God's strength dwelling in him. (No, I am not saying Jesus had to be born again!!!!) The same power working in us to resist temptation was working in Jesus to resist temptation.

So you think that it the sin nature only gets passed down through the male side.
But Mary had a sin nature, so why couldn't she pass that on?

"The life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11a) In pregnancy the blood of the mother and the fetus does not mix.
And: "it is the blood that makes atonement by the life" - which is why Jesus had to die.

That is a bit of a fluff around and selecting a meaning from a number of possible definitions of "the Word" which we have from those days.
Not only from the rest of the context of John 1 but also from the other things said about Jesus, the Son in the NT, we can see that the definition that your teachers chose is a load of crap and that Jesus did pre exist as a living being through whom God created everything.

I got the definition from Strong's Concordance. Anyone can use a Lexicon and a concordance. And true there are many meanings, but they all have to do with the concept of speech a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea, what someone has said, the sayings of God, the act of speaking, speech, reason, the mental faculty of thinking among others AND the root word from which we get logos is lego which means to say, to speak. This is how logos would have been understood by those reading these scriptures in the early church.
In John 1:1,2 Jesus is never mentioned. The word autos (he, she, it) translated "him" could have legitimately been translated "it" and then the verse would read - All things were made through it, and without it was not anything made that was made which makes perfect sense and is in harmony with Genesis 1 - "In the beginning - And God said".
Then later in verse 14 - God's word became flesh. The purpose of John's gospel was not to introduce the Trinity but so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (the anointed, the Messiah), the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (20:31)
If you want to call it "a bit of fluff" - "a load of crap" - then so be it.

I think it is better to start with the plain meaning of other passages and not bother with an obvious pick and choose about the definition of the Word and then have the need to deny the other plain meaning scriptures to suite your choice of the definition for the Word.

Okay.

So you have nothing to say about my explanation of why the Divine Jesus could have been tempted?
The Son is and was distinct from His Father before coming to earth, but what you deny is the oneness of them both. The Father and Son were one as well as being distinct. From eternity they were one God with the Father being the source of the Son.

The Divine Jesus, i.e. God cannot be tempted with evil.
The Son (God) is and was distinct from His Father (God) before coming to earth -
I do not deny "I and the Father (God) are one" - I do deny the concept of "one" as being "one thing" as in two, three, four or more beings, persons, etc. being "one thing".

Yes, and when the human being @amazing grace is tempted that is the carnal nature wanting something which is against God's will, and when you overcome temptation, that is your inner man telling your carnal nature, body and mind, to pull it's head in and that you aren't going to let it dictate what you do. Same with Jesus whose inner man was/is exactly like God.

When I am tempted, I rely and place my trust upon God my Father to strengthen me to overcome said temptation just as Jesus did. God does not rely or depend upon anyone.

Yes I think I have said that "divine" means "deity".
How is Jesus not exactly like, identical, to God His Father. Isn't that what Heb 1 tells us, isn't that what Jesus tells us when He said to Philip that when he saw Him (Jesus) he was seeing the Father.

No, Hebrews 1 isn't telling us that Jesus is identical to God nor does Jesus tell Philip he was identical to God and Philip would have never thought Jesus was saying he was God the Father. Jesus was an exact imprint, representation of God and made God known through his life and actions by doing the works of God his Father.

The scripture tells us that the man Jesus is comparable to YHWH and was there creating the universe. So this man Jesus must be YHWH as well as being a man.
And NO, you are on purpose misunderstanding the meaning of Numbers 23:19 so that you can say that God cannot become a man. That is called twisting the scriptures imo.

IMO - you are on purpose misunderstanding the meaning of Numbers 23:19 so that you can say "It doesn't say that God cannot become a man only God was not a man in his actions characterisics." And what about Hosea 11:9 - "for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst,"?
It seems to me that God plainly says "I am not a man, nor the Son of man" and "I am God and not a man".

 

[amazing grace]

It is a whole other subject but subjects are related in the Bible and these are related.
As I have said, if physical death leads to non existence that not only denies what Jesus said (Matt 10:28 and Jesus and the Bible in other places also) but means that the resurrection is not a resurrection but the making of a copy of us and it means that Jesus could not have been God because someone who is God cannot go out of existence.
Even Ecclesiastes and Psalms does not tell us that the dead go out of existence, it is a doctrine that, like the non pre existence of Jesus, is a made up doctrine which goes against the Biblical teaching.

I had to split the post!

Death is the ending of life. When something has ceased to live, it is dead. If it is dead, then it is not living.
For in death there is no remembrance of you: in Sheol (the grave) who will give you praise. Ps. 6:5
What profit is there in my death, when I go down to the pit? (the grave) Will my dust praise you? Will it tell of your faithfulness? Ps. 30:9
The dead do not praise Yahweh, nor do any who go down into silence. (the grave) Ps. 115:17
Exactly how do you understand these verses?

Yep, but your concept of what death is, is not Biblical imo.

We are more than our body. As Jesus said, out physical body can die but our soul does not die when our body dies.
Maybe you don't think we are more than just a body with a spirit in it which is no more than a spark of life that can be extinguished at death.

Yes, did Jesus go out of existence at the death of His body or not?

The soul is our breath life - God breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam became a living soul. I don't believe in an "immortal soul" which you said you didn't, but I can't really tell by what you say.

Jesus died, he quit breathing, he was placed in a tomb (grave), he was out of existence - God raised him from the dead giving him a new spiritual body - still flesh and bone but different. He was sown a natural body; he was raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is a spiritual body.

You did say that if Jesus was God, then the temptations were not real.
But you ignored the carnal side of the man Jesus and seem to think that if He was God in the flesh then He cannot have been a man (God is not a man after all)
Wow the web of deceit and misinterpretation of scriptures from your teachers, of necessity has to be wide.

Yes, I did say that if Jesus was God, then the temptations were not real - futile.
I am replying in the manner to which you present Jesus - NOT a real man but a God-man, 100% man/100% God; i.e. GOD and God cannot sin.
I really and truly do not think that there is any deceit or misinterpretation of scriptures nor would I intentionally set forth something that I do not believe is Biblical regarding my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - I just read them without believing Jesus is God, but truly a flesh and blood man - a man contrasted with Adam has to be a real flesh and blood man as Adam was. If I have, I have someone whom I will have to stand before to answer for any said deceit or misinterpretation and it ain't you!
And again, I could say the same to you regarding what I believe to be deceit and misinterpretation.

Apparently Satan is a desperate dude and we know is a being full of pride and I would put nothing past him. He thinks he might be able to avoid the judgement somehow and is desperate to do it if at all possible. Any subtle trick to get Jesus to do any little thing wrong would probably save his own butt and stop the plan of salvation also.
It would be surprising if Satan allowed Jesus to waltz through life without challenges to His righteousness and etc.

He is desperate and yes, he doesn't want any of God's kids to walk through life without challenges - after all our adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8)

I see God as knowing all the things He is going to do in the future but at the same time as traveling through time with us and making decisions based on what has happened. He is not fickle in those decisions like humans might be, and does not go back on the decisions unless there is a change of circumstance and God makes another decision based on the new circumstance. (eg the illness of Hezekiah -Isa 38- in which God changed His mind because of the new circumstances of Hezekiah's repentance)
No the point is not that "God is not a man", the point is that God is not fickle or a liar.
The point is that the scripture does not say that God cannot become a man.
The point is that if God did become a man, He would still be God and would not be fickle or a liar,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but men are fickle and liars,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, not so the man who is the Holy One of Israel, the Son of God who is God as a man and who is exactly like His Father, identical to His Father, if we saw Jesus we would be seeing the Father, they are so much alike.

I believe God answered Hezekiah's sincere prayer - The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (James 5:16)
It is true that the verse points out that God is not fickle or a liar but it also points out that God is not a man. Can the Creator become one of his creations? Should we change the glory of the immortal God into mortal man? I

The temptations ended up showing the righteousness of Jesus and so that He was/is perfectly good and so is God, and it also shows that His Father, God, whom Jesus is the Son of, is also righteous. It glorified God.

I agree that Jesus's avoidance of the temptations, placing his trust and giving his obedience to God - glorified God.

 

[amazing grace]

Exact imprint of nature, shines with same glory, can do anything the Father does, has all power and authority in heaven and earth................ how is Jesus not exactly like YHWH. And remember that if He is exactly like YHWH then He is YHWH.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature (ESV); who being the brightness of His glory and the exact image of His person (KJV): discussed many times - Jesus perfectly reflected the glory of God; Jesus was the exact imprint/image, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect; facsimile of God's character. [The Greek word for express imprint/image is "charakter".] I have given this definition from Strong's Concordance before but I guess you also consider this "a load of crap."

Heb 1:10. Yes it says that the Son laid (past tense) the foundations of the earth and the heavens are (so the heavens that now exist) the work of His hands.

Explained in previous post. Adding words to what the verse says does not help your case.

He is eternal father (Isa 9:6) He was in the beginning with God, (that implies that He was always with God in timelessness and John 1:1 goes on to say that He was God. And it says elsewhere in John 1 that He is God. Micah 5:2 implies from eternity (the days of everlasting)
Titus 2:13 as we await the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
He appears to be our everlasting God.

I thought you said that Jesus and the Father were "one" as in "one thing" but distinct from each other so Jesus is NOT the Father - yet now you are using the above verse now to say that Jesus is the Everlasting Father?????
Does not say in John 1 that Jesus was God - it said the word was God. And the basic definition of "logos" but that was also put off as a "load of crap".
Yes the ESV has this "as we await the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" for Titus 2:13 but in this case the KJV is more correct: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" - I say that because of what follows: who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify for himself a peculiar people, zealous for good works." God did not die to redeem us from all iniquity.

No.
The Father and Son are one thing and the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. So the Son is in the one true God.
If I see the Son I am seeing the Father who is in Him and whom the Son exactly like.
If I saw the Father I would be seeing the Son who is in Him and whom the Father is exactly like.
One is a copy of the other and you cannot tell by looking it seems. You need to ask who is who.
The Father is the only true God and He and the Son are united as one God.
2 beings exactly alike but not 2 Gods, one God because they are united and one is the Son of the other and has been from eternity, from the beginning of time.
I don't know how to explain it, and I don't think we are required to be able to explain it, but if I say what the Bible says, how can I go wrong.

Yes, the Father and the Son are one in the same sense we are to be one with them.
When we see Jesus, we see God the Father because Jesus was a precise reproduction in every respect of God's character - he showed us who God his Father was by doing those things the God his Father told him to do and say.
We cannot see God so that's not applicable - the only way to see God the Father is through His Son, Jesus Christ, the one who came to make Him known.
Yes, it can be said that Jesus is a copy of his Father but a copy is not the original.

When did God bring His firstborn into the world after the resurrection. That happened when Jesus was conceived and born. The angels had to be told whom He was I suppose. He was lesser in power than they were but greater because of whom He was, the Son of God. So they worshipped Him even when He was not as powerful.

Jesus became the firstborn of the dead when God raised him from the dead, aka the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (metaphor for those who have died). He was made a little lower than the angels at his birth (as all humanity). "for a little while" but now is crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death and now being at the right hand of the Majesty on High, he has become much superior to the angels - therefore "Let all God's angels worship him."

Thanks, I can't wait to jump into a warm bed.

 

[Brian2]

Nope, but we have thoroughly exhausted this subject. Yes, I see that "created" is in the past tense but we have this to consider - There is a literary technique used in the Bible that describes future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they have already happened. The new heavens and new earth are being prepared - "I go to prepare a place for you" . . . (John 14:3)

Yes I have seen that literary technique used in the Old Testament in prophecy.
The passages you refer to are not prophecies however.
John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet othe world did not know him.
This for example is not meant to be "He was in the world, and the new world will be made through him, yet the world did not know him."
But in John 1 no doubt you get around that one by saying it is about the Word, which was not a being.
So John 1:3 is not meant to be a prophecy about the new earth etc. because it is about the Word which is not a being.
John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
But all the other New Testament quotes about all things having been created through Jesus or the Son, for some strange reason, have to either be prophecies, using the prophetic perfect tense even though the New Creation is not mentioned anywhere in those places and it is just God being confusing if those places are meant to be prophecies and about the New Creation.
The thing that seals the issue imo is Heb 1:10-12, which is about the Son of God and in which it shows which creation it is talking about when it says:
10 And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

Unless you think that the New Creation is going to wear out and be rolled up, the Son laid the foundation of this earth, in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of His hands.
And it even tells us when this creation happened,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, in the beginning.
How does your theology explain this?

The concept of pre-existence is just one of the reasons I rejected the trinity.

So now you know that your anti pre-existing interpretation is wrong, you can reject the trinity for those other reasons and join a different anti trinity group.

Okay, that is what you say and what you understand them to be saying - I see in scripture that Jesus had a genesis, an origin, a beginning - not a pre-beginning.

Certainly the beginning of the man Jesus happened with Mary.
It is a bit drastic however to decide that what Jesus plainly said about being in heaven with God before the world began, is not true because of your own pre suppositions about Jesus having no pre existence.
If you can see in scripture that Jesus had a genesis, an origin, a beginning, then please share that instead of just claiming it and denying the plain stuff to the contrary.

The thing is I do see which "creation" is being spoken about - which "beginning" is being spoken about. And when I point out that there were no chapters and verse in the original text - and I say that Hebrew 2:5 is part of the context and clearly states "not to the angels that God subjected the world to come of which we are speaking" - you say that is not part of the context, that is 6,7,8 (how ever many) verses later!

Of course Hebrews 2 carries on logically from Hebrews 1, but not in the way you are suggesting, and what you are suggesting does not alter the FACT that what Hebrews 1:10-12 is speaking about cannot be the New Heavens and New Earth, because the New Heavens and New Earth are forever and do not get old and rolled up.

A mediator is a go-between - someone who stands between two parties in conflict and petitions on their behalf. God - Jesus - man - it is Jesus who is our intercessor who intercedes on our behalf.

It is Jesus who is both the Son of Man and the Son of God. Not just a man, not just God.
Someone who knows both sides.

 

[Brian2]

Mankind was not created to have a "sin nature" it is a flaw, a blemish. Since Adam's fall, all men have the "sin nature" EXCEPT Jesus; all are considered dead in trespasses and sins.

We were considered dead in trespasses and sins because we sinned. Our guilt is not something inherited from Adam, the propensity to sin is inherited from Adam and our weakness and proneness to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit now at work in those who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord. (Eph 2:1,2)

In the OT, what was the purpose of the High Priest? Wasn't it the job of the High Priest to enter the holy of holies with the sacrifices prepared for atonement and petition God for the forgiveness of Israel's sins? Jesus is now our High Priest, our intercessor and mediator who petitions God on our behalf.
God is our Savior in that He is the originator of the plan of salvation. Jesus is our Savior in that he was sent by God to fulfill that plan.

The OT Law was a shadow of what was to come. He is the High Priest and the Lamb sacrificed to God. But it is God who is our only saviour and that includes not only the one who devised a plan but the one who fulfilled it.

We have a sin nature but it did not do away with us being made in the image of God - we just don't reflect God as perfectly as we would if we didn't have the sin nature. If we did not retain the image of God to some degree - can you imagine the evil that would be in the world, even more so than now?
Wasn't Jesus baptized and the heavens opened and the Spirit of God descended like a dove and came to rest on him? THEN the Spirit lead him into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil? What helps us resist temptation? Being born again of the Spirit through faith and trust in Jesus Christ. So, in the same manner we resist temptation with God's strength dwelling; Jesus also resisted temptation with God's strength dwelling in him. (No, I am not saying Jesus had to be born again!!!!) The same power working in us to resist temptation was working in Jesus to resist temptation.

Jesus resisted temptation all His life because of who He is, the Son of God with God's nature in Him.
But you are suggesting that Jesus might not have resisted temptation if He had a sin nature, and so it is easier to resist without that.
Jesus was and is the light of the world, the Son who became a man, and the darkness was not ABLE to overcome it.

"The life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11a) In pregnancy the blood of the mother and the fetus does not mix.
And: "it is the blood that makes atonement by the life" - which is why Jesus had to die.

I don't think the blood of my father mixed with my blood. That has nothing to do with a sin nature imo.

I got the definition from Strong's Concordance. Anyone can use a Lexicon and a concordance. And true there are many meanings, but they all have to do with the concept of speech a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea, what someone has said, the sayings of God, the act of speaking, speech, reason, the mental faculty of thinking among others AND the root word from which we get logos is lego which means to say, to speak. This is how logos would have been understood by those reading these scriptures in the early church.
In John 1:1,2 Jesus is never mentioned. The word autos (he, she, it) translated "him" could have legitimately been translated "it" and then the verse would read - All things were made through it, and without it was not anything made that was made which makes perfect sense and is in harmony with Genesis 1 - "In the beginning - And God said".
Then later in verse 14 - God's word became flesh. The purpose of John's gospel was not to introduce the Trinity but so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (the anointed, the Messiah), the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (20:31)
If you want to call it "a bit of fluff" - "a load of crap" - then so be it.

We need to consider what sort of "Son of God" John was wanting us to believe in. If it is a "son of God" who is created like any other being then big deal, everyone is a Christian unless you are a Christ Mythicist.
Logos has a variety of possible references in ancient times and it shows something that came from God, that revealed God to us. In John 1:1,2 we see this Logos was with God in the beginning (from eternity) and was God. This God which the Logos was is either "a god" or someone who is exactly like "The God" that the Logos was with. We cross out "a god" as being rubbish and end up with someone who is exactly like "the God" He was with.
Whether we want to call the Logos an 'it' or a 'he' it does not make a difference to what the verses say because both "a god" and "exactly like the God the Logos was with" both include life, since The God is alive and so being like The God means being alive.

The Divine Jesus, i.e. God cannot be tempted with evil.

The Divine Jesus ie God, cannot be tempted to do evil, even when He is a man with a physical body with desires which are contrary to the will of God.
James 1:14-16 But we are tempted when we are drawn away and trapped by our own evil desires. Then our evil desires conceive and give birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

The Son (God) is and was distinct from His Father (God) before coming to earth -

All the distinct means is that there were the Father and the Son in the one God.

I do not deny "I and the Father (God) are one" - I do deny the concept of "one" as being "one thing" as in two, three, four or more beings, persons, etc. being "one thing".

Then you are imo stepping away from the grammar of what "I and the Father are one" means. Which of course you need to do once you take the road that says the trinity is not true.

When I am tempted, I rely and place my trust upon God my Father to strengthen me to overcome said temptation just as Jesus did. God does not rely or depend upon anyone.

IMO it was the nature of God in Jesus which overcame sin, that is who He was/is, the Son who has the nature of His Father.
This nature is something we get a taste of in Christ but we not fully as Jesus has/had.

No, Hebrews 1 isn't telling us that Jesus is identical to God nor does Jesus tell Philip he was identical to God and Philip would have never thought Jesus was saying he was God the Father. Jesus was an exact imprint, representation of God and made God known through his life and actions by doing the works of God his Father.

Exact imprint of His Father's nature/essence and for this reason was able to overcome temptation. But you have not said how Jesus is not identical to God except maybe in being the Son instead of the Father.

IMO - you are on purpose misunderstanding the meaning of Numbers 23:19 so that you can say "It doesn't say that God cannot become a man only God was not a man in his actions characterisics." And what about Hosea 11:9 - "for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst,"?
It seems to me that God plainly says "I am not a man, nor the Son of man" and "I am God and not a man".

I am purposely looking at what Numbers 23:19 says and what the passage means.
I see the same in Hosea 11:9,,,,,,,,,,,,,, God is not fickle etc like a man, but is Holy. Jesus also is Holy.
Luke 1:35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God.
BUT you seem to think that the Son of God becoming a man means that the whole of God became a man. But that is not the case. The Holy Spirit remained a Spirit, the Father remained a Spirit. It is just the Son who took on the form and likeness of a man. (and yes He actually chose to do that).
Phil 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God ra thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

 

[Brian2]

Death is the ending of life. When something has ceased to live, it is dead. If it is dead, then it is not living.
For in death there is no remembrance of you: in Sheol (the grave) who will give you praise. Ps. 6:5
What profit is there in my death, when I go down to the pit? (the grave) Will my dust praise you? Will it tell of your faithfulness? Ps. 30:9
The dead do not praise Yahweh, nor do any who go down into silence. (the grave) Ps. 115:17
Exactly how do you understand these verses?

Yes when the body has died it is dead. BUT the soul goes on living as Jesus said.
I understand the passages about praising God in sheol as referring to the type of praise people did in the Temple. That, I am told, is what the word "praise" there specifically refers to.

The soul is our breath life - God breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam became a living soul. I don't believe in an "immortal soul" which you said you didn't, but I can't really tell by what you say.

If God can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna then the soul can be destroyed. Actually I don't know how long the soul might live without that intervention by God, maybe forever,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, after all the worm of those who go to Gehenna is said to not die, so something lives forever even when the body and soul are destroyed. (Mark 9:48, Isa 66:24)

Jesus died, he quit breathing, he was placed in a tomb (grave), he was out of existence - God raised him from the dead giving him a new spiritual body - still flesh and bone but different. He was sown a natural body; he was raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is a spiritual body.

It is speaking of His body. "It" was sown a natural body.
1Peter 3:19 He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit, 19in whom(which) He also went and preached to the spirits in prison.
Phil 1:23 I am torn between the two. I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better indeed.
Luke 16: 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him,
Jesus suffered the bodily death and the death of deprivation from knowing the presence of God (God, why have you forsaken me) but He did not suffer the second death and nobody suffers that without the final judgement.

Yes, I did say that if Jesus was God, then the temptations were not real - futile.
I am replying in the manner to which you present Jesus - NOT a real man but a God-man, 100% man/100% God; i.e. GOD and God cannot sin.
I really and truly do not think that there is any deceit or misinterpretation of scriptures nor would I intentionally set forth something that I do not believe is Biblical regarding my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - I just read them without believing Jesus is God, but truly a flesh and blood man - a man contrasted with Adam has to be a real flesh and blood man as Adam was. If I have, I have someone whom I will have to stand before to answer for any said deceit or misinterpretation and it ain't you!
And again, I could say the same to you regarding what I believe to be deceit and misinterpretation.

God and God cannot sin, man and man can sin, the light of the world whom darkness cannot overcome, because He is exactly like His Father, He can overcome temptation. It was not a matter of if.
Overcoming temptation does not mean, not tempted.
Jesus was sent to do a job, not to show how wonderful His is compared to us so that He can feel proud about it forever.
And of course you think I have been deceived also. That's the way it goes. I cannot judge you of course, all I can do is point out what I see as errors in your understanding. Over the years I seem to have come to a place where I believe Jesus will not judge people as the hard nosed in the Church say ie. believe like I believe or go to hell.

I believe God answered Hezekiah's sincere prayer - The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (James 5:16)
It is true that the verse points out that God is not fickle or a liar but it also points out that God is not a man. Can the Creator become one of his creations? Should we change the glory of the immortal God into mortal man?

Not even Jesus changed the glory of the immortal God into mortal man. He always pointed to His Father as glorious in heaven and knew His place as the humble servant relying on His Father.
But the truth will never substitute the glory of the immortal God for a mortal man. The truth understand the difference and that the fullness of God is more than a mortal man. There is no idolatry in the trinity doctrine of who and what God is.

 

[Brian2]

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature (ESV); who being the brightness of His glory and the exact image of His person (KJV): discussed many times - Jesus perfectly reflected the glory of God; Jesus was the exact imprint/image, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect; facsimile of God's character. [The Greek word for express imprint/image is "charakter".] I have given this definition from Strong's Concordance before but I guess you also consider this "a load of crap."

Yes the Son is exactly like God as you say, but is not the Father. He is the Son who is exactly like His Father. He is not just a mortal man as you imagine.

Explained in previous post. Adding words to what the verse says does not help your case.

Forgetting the words that say that "this heaven and earth will be rolled up" does not help your case and literally blows it away.

I thought you said that Jesus and the Father were "one" as in "one thing" but distinct from each other so Jesus is NOT the Father - yet now you are using the above verse now to say that Jesus is the Everlasting Father?????

I was referring to Isa 9:6 and could have also said in regards this, that Jesus is called Mighty God (just as YHWH is in other OT verses)
In regards "everlasting Father" I believe Jesus is my Father and it is just in the godhead that there is a relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Does not say in John 1 that Jesus was God - it said the word was God. And the basic definition of "logos" but that was also put off as a "load of crap".
Yes the ESV has this "as we await the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" for Titus 2:13 but in this case the KJV is more correct: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" - I say that because of what follows: who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify for himself a peculiar people, zealous for good works." God did not die to redeem us from all iniquity.

Who is coming? The Father or the Son? We wait for the return of Jesus not the appearing of God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless the Son is God or in Him dwell the fullness of deity bodily as Col 2:9 tells us.

Yes, the Father and the Son are one in the same sense we are to be one with them.
When we see Jesus, we see God the Father because Jesus was a precise reproduction in every respect of God's character - he showed us who God his Father was by doing those things the God his Father told him to do and say.
We cannot see God so that's not applicable - the only way to see God the Father is through His Son, Jesus Christ, the one who came to make Him known.
Yes, it can be said that Jesus is a copy of his Father but a copy is not the original.

Jesus is a copy, but really "not the original" does not apply when we see the Son as having been the Son in the beginning, before time. The Son has always been, and has always been exactly like His Father.

Jesus became the firstborn of the dead when God raised him from the dead, aka the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (metaphor for those who have died). He was made a little lower than the angels at his birth (as all humanity). "for a little while" but now is crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death and now being at the right hand of the Majesty on High, he has become much superior to the angels - therefore "Let all God's angels worship him."

He is as much superior to the angels as the name He inherited (the name above all names, the name of His Father) is superior to their's.
He is YHWH. After being made lower than angels He inherits His Father's name (YHWH) which is one of the things which He owned as a man (John 16:15) but which He did not want to grab or cling to when He became a man,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but it still was and is His.

 

[amazing grace]

Yes I have seen that literary technique used in the Old Testament in prophecy.
The passages you refer to are not prophecies however.
John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet othe world did not know him.
This for example is not meant to be "He was in the world, and the new world will be made through him, yet the world did not know him."
But in John 1 no doubt you get around that one by saying it is about the Word, which was not a being.
So John 1:3 is not meant to be a prophecy about the new earth etc. because it is about the Word which is not a being.
John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
But all the other New Testament quotes about all things having been created through Jesus or the Son, for some strange reason, have to either be prophecies, using the prophetic perfect tense even though the New Creation is not mentioned anywhere in those places and it is just God being confusing if those places are meant to be prophecies and about the New Creation.
The thing that seals the issue imo is Heb 1:10-12, which is about the Son of God and in which it shows which creation it is talking about when it says:
10 And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

Unless you think that the New Creation is going to wear out and be rolled up, the Son laid the foundation of this earth, in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of His hands.
And it even tells us when this creation happened,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, in the beginning.
How does your theology explain this?

When I was addressing the prophetic perfect, it was in regard to Heb. 1:2.
John 1:10 just reiterates John 1:3 and refers to God's word creating in the beginning. Understandable without reading a trinity into the scripture.
Heb. 1:10-13 This is taken from the OT where it was applicable to Yahweh and applied to Jesus Christ here in Hebrews. Again - the context reveals clearly that this speaking of these future heavens and earth. If we simply continue to read in Hebrews, remembering that the original texts had no chapter breaks, Scripture tells us, “It is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking” (Heb 2:5) This verse is very clear. The current heavens and earth will be destroyed "they will pass away" (2 Peter 3:10,13) but the future heaven and earth will exist forever (Rev. 21:1). The word “beginning” does not always apply to the absolute beginning of time, but rather the beginning of something the author is referring to. When this verse is referring to the work of the Father, as it is in the Old Testament, it refers to the beginning of the entire heavens and earth. When it is applied to the Son, it refers to the beginning of his work, the new heaven and earth, not the beginning of all creation, as Heb 2:5 makes clear.

So now you know that your anti pre-existing interpretation is wrong, you can reject the trinity for those other reasons and join a different anti trinity group.

I don't believe that my "anti pre-existing interpretation is wrong. I am happy and at peace being a Biblical Unitarian.

Certainly the beginning of the man Jesus happened with Mary.
It is a bit drastic however to decide that what Jesus plainly said about being in heaven with God before the world began, is not true because of your own pre suppositions about Jesus having no pre existence.
If you can see in scripture that Jesus had a genesis, an origin, a beginning, then please share that instead of just claiming it and denying the plain stuff to the contrary.

What I do not believe is that Jesus literally pre-existed in heaven with God before the world began but I do believe that Jesus pre-existed in God's mind, plans and purposes, a notional pre-existence, for the salvation and redemption of mankind. Notional pre-existence is the idea that something or someone may ‘exist’ in the mind of God before actualizing on earth in history at the appointed time.
Correct, it is not the new heavens and the new earth being "rolled up and changed" but the current heavens and earth and a new heaven and earth is being created which will exist forever. (as explained above)

Of course Hebrews 2 carries on logically from Hebrews 1, but not in the way you are suggesting, and what you are suggesting does not alter the FACT that what Hebrews 1:10-12 is speaking about cannot be the New Heavens and New Earth, because the New Heavens and New Earth are forever and do not get old and rolled up.

(See above) Yep, totally exhausted this section of scripture.

It is Jesus who is both the Son of Man and the Son of God. Not just a man, not just God.
Someone who knows both sides.

Yep, Jesus carries the titles Son of Man and Son of God.
Consequently, he (Jesus) is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him (Jesus), since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Heb. 7:25)
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5)
So, when you visualize Jesus interceding and mediating on our behalf - what exactly do you visualize?