Jesus - First Born?

[amazing grace]

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)

"for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law" - IOW, even those whose wrong doing was not considered sin before the law.
"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses (before the law), even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." The judgment of death was upon all humanity. Therefore, ALL humanity were "dead in trespasses and sins" not through any fault of their own but because of Adam's transgression. Doesn't matter if you call it the "propensity to sin" or the "sin nature" - all humanity has it, i.e. inherited it from Adam. (I don't feel the necessity to say "except Jesus" each time. I would think you would know what I mean)

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.

I understand that the OT law was a shadow of what was to come. If Jesus is God, how is He our High Priest and the Lamb sacrificed to God?
I am going to assume that you are referring to Psalm 43:11 - "I, I am Yahweh and besides me there is no savior." Why automatically leap to the conclusion that since God said "besides me there is no Savior" that Jesus is God?
What do we do with OT verses wherein God sent "saviors" (Neh. 9:27; 2 Kings 13:5; Obadiah 21) to deliver the Israelites out of their troubles? Do we leap to the same conclusion?
But "God exalted Jesus at his right hand as Leader and Savior to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins". (Acts 5:31)
"Of this man's offspring (David the son of Jesse) God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised". (Acts 13:23)
Ultimately God is the Savior, who brought about our eternal salvation through Jesus Christ - "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Jude 25)

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.

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

Jesus resisted temptation because he chose to obey God.
I am not saying that it was easier for him to resist the temptation without the sin nature.
Romans 5 specifically states how sin and it's consequence entered the world, i.e. through one man. However that occurs - the sin nature has passed on to ALL humanity (except Jesus) through one man. Jesus had to be "a lamb without blemish" - the sin nature would have blemished him even without falling for the temptations.

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.

What sort of "Son of God" John was wanting us to believe in???? If John wrote about Jesus and the many signs he did in the presence of the disciples through the power of God his Father and then said that he wrote so that we would believe in this Son of God then that is who he wants us to believe in. I don't believe that he wanted us to ever believe that the Son of God was actually God but the one who was prophesied in the OT, the only begotten Son of God whom God gave so that mankind could believe in him and receive eternal life. The man, the suffering servant, who would shed his blood for the remission of sins, etc.
Seems to me that if God was coming to earth as a man - He would have simply said that. As in "For I so loved the world, that I am giving myself, that anyone who believes in me should not perish but have everlasting life."
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do my will but the will of him who sent me." So, God came down from heaven not to do His own will but the will of Him who sent me. Who sent Him?

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.

I have said this before but you insist on putting "the" God in the verse and it is not there. OT believers knew the Messiah would be a man sent from/by God. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the apostles all knew that the Messiah would be a man sent from/by God because that is what was prophesied through God's word. They never would have thought God was coming to earth as a man (which I believe was Gnostic but I am not sure). God's logos became flesh; what God promised via His spoken and written word became flesh.

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.

So, Jesus did have a split personality - He had a divine will and a human will. The human will could decide to sin but the divine will could not sin.
I know what James 1:14-16 says - Jesus didn't allow the temptation to dwell on his mind but immediately shut it down by "It is written."

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

Have you ever looked at the definition for distinct? There is one God who is the Father and Jesus Christ who is His Son and they are totally distinguished in scripture.

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.

What grammar am I stepping away from? John 10:30 can be taken ontologically - as in the nature of a being or it can be taken functionally as in that which relates to the purpose which flows with John 17 when Jesus prays for those who believe in him to be "one with them"; and also with the body of Christ being "one". I take it functionally which does nothing to the grammar but it does have a lot to do with the understanding.

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.

I know: His "human will" was put aside and it was his "divine will" which overcame sin.

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.

The "exact imprint" - an imprint is a mark imprinted upon something - as in the exact figure of Lincoln being imprinted upon a penny - the penny itself is not Lincoln!!! So, if the "exact imprint" is an imprint of an image then the imprint is not identical with the original.

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.

The "whole of God" didn't become a man just 1/3 of Him? God the Holy Spirit remained a Spirit - God the Father remained a Spirit but "God the Son" became a man????? Okay, sure!

 

[amazing grace]

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.

You do believe in the "immortal soul" which had its roots in Greek paganism. Where does the "soul" go?
In Hebrew "praise" means to give thanks, laud, praise or to confess, confess (the name of God)

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)

Body, soul and spirit (sometimes referred to the "spirit of man") is what makes up the whole of man. When a person dies the whole person dies.
God will redeem our whole body at the resurrection. We will be judged - those judged righteous to eternal life - those judged unrighteous to the lake of fire (gehanna) where the body and soul will be destroyed.

It is speaking of His body. "It" was sown a natural body.

It is speaking of man and man's complete self. A person dies and is buried (sown a natural body) to await the resurrection when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live (raised a spiritual 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.

Yes, Jesus, in his resurrected body (made alive in the Spirit; raised a spiritual body) went and proclaimed his defeat over death 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.

What was Paul's better option between living or dying? It was departing and being with Christ.

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.

I believe this to be a parable because it lies within the context of other parables: the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10); the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12); the parable of the fig tree (Luke 13); the parable of the wedding feast (Luke 14); the parable of the great banquet (Luke 14); the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15); the parable of the lost coin (Luke 15); the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15); the parable of the dishonest manager (Luke 16); the parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18).
In the day we die our thoughts perish (Ps. 146:4); we have no remembrance of God (Ps. 6:5); the dead no nothing and have no memory (Ecc. 9:5); there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol (the grave). [Ecc. 9:10]
When Jesus died how was he deprived from the presence of God if he is God?
Of course, he did not suffer the second death! The second death is reserved for the unrighteous.

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.

Okay . . . .

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.

That doesn't really answer what I asked - I didn't ask if Jesus changed the glory of the immortal God into mortal man - I know HE didn't - He reflected God's glory.

I asked if YOU think that by YOU believing that God came to earth as a man; i.e. Jesus are YOU exchanging the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal man?

 

[Brian2]

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 Hebrews tells us that Hebrews 1:10-12 is about Jesus and you say no, only verse 10 is about Jesus and that is a prophecy and is speaking about the new heavens and new earth which Jesus will make and so the tense should be future.
Heb 1 shows us that Jesus is not an angel and is far superior to angels and why and Heb 2 goes on to say that the Moses Covenant delivered by angels was true and the Salvation declared by Jesus and witnesses and confirmed by miracles is a greater salvation, not to be neglected.
Then Heb 2 says:

Heb 2:5 For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. 6 It has been testified somewhere,
“What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,[a]
8 putting everything in subjection under his feet.”

Heb 1:10-12 is about why Jesus is superior. The next section starts talking about the salvation declared by Jesus and witnesses etc and it is this that Heb 2:5 is referring to when it says "of which we are speaking",,,,,,,,,,,, and then it goes on to show that it by quoting a scripture that man and not angels will be crowned with glory and honor, and having everything subject to man.

Basically Heb 2:5 is not referring to the scriptures that show Jesus is superior, it is referring to the salvation that is declared to us.

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.

And since the Son laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the works of His hands, this notional pre existence is not for Him and is just part of the mental gymnastics that you have to go through to get to your interpretation, and which you have done so many times that it does not even seem like gymnastics to you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but believe me, it is.

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?

I see Jesus sitting next to God and whispering in His ear about us.
I see Jesus claiming salvation and mercy for us through His sacrifice.
I see the associate and confidante of God, and not a mere man, advising God His partner.
Zech 13:7 Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, against the man who is My Companion, declares the LORD of Hosts. Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn My hand against the little ones.

 

[amazing grace]

So Hebrews tells us that Hebrews 1:10-12 is about Jesus and you say no, only verse 10 is about Jesus and that is a prophecy and is speaking about the new heavens and new earth which Jesus will make and so the tense should be future.

I have NEVER said that any of Hebrews is not about Jesus.

Heb 1 shows us that Jesus is not an angel and is far superior to angels and why and Heb 2 goes on to say that the Moses Covenant delivered by angels was true and the Salvation declared by Jesus and witnesses and confirmed by miracles is a greater salvation, not to be neglected.
Then Heb 2 says:

Heb 2:5 For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. 6 It has been testified somewhere,
“What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,[a]
8 putting everything in subjection under his feet.”

Heb 1:10-12 is about why Jesus is superior. The next section starts talking about the salvation declared by Jesus and witnesses etc and it is this that Heb 2:5 is referring to when it says "of which we are speaking",,,,,,,,,,,, and then it goes on to show that it by quoting a scripture that man and not angels will be crowned with glory and honor, and having everything subject to man.

Basically Heb 2:5 is not referring to the scriptures that show Jesus is superior, it is referring to the salvation that is declared to us.

v6) "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? 7a) You have made him for a little while lower than the angels," - this is when Jesus was alive on earth.
7b) "you have crowned him with glory and honor putting everything in subjection under his feet. . . ." 9) "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." - after his death and resurrection . . . 3b) he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high 4) having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
This whole section of scripture is comparing the exalted resurrected Jesus with the angels - he was made lower but after his death and resurrection he was exalted and became much more superior to angels - so v6) And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says "Let all God's angels worship him." - relates to the "firstborn from the dead".

Now, I believe that vs 10-12 refer to the new heavens and the new earth (the world to come) BUT if we don't want to see it as Jesus creating the world to come and it refers to the Gen. 1 creation - it would still apply to God the Father: v10 is a continuation of v9 because of "AND" (a conjunction used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly) - after "therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions. AND you, Lord (referring to God from v9) laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 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.
Oh wow!!! even after my stance throughout, I believe the above to be a more correct reading - It is surprising what comes out when things are read thoroughly! Now after seeing it in this manner - it's clearer that when Hebrews is speaking about "the world to come" it's referring to Jesus's superiority to the angels. I love it when I have a light bulb moment!

And since the Son laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the works of His hands, this notional pre existence is not for Him and is just part of the mental gymnastics that you have to go through to get to your interpretation, and which you have done so many times that it does not even seem like gymnastics to you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but believe me, it is.

Although I have changed my perception of the context of Hebrews 1 & 2 - I cannot agree to a literal pre-existence of Jesus nor do I see Jesus creating in the Genesis 1 record.

I see Jesus sitting next to God and whispering in His ear about us.
I see Jesus claiming salvation and mercy for us through His sacrifice.
I see the associate and confidante of God, and not a mere man, advising God His partner.
Zech 13:7 Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, against the man who is My Companion, declares the LORD of Hosts. Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn My hand against the little ones.

If Jesus is God how is he sitting next to himself? If Jesus is God how is he an associate, confidante and partner of himself?
I see the Lamb of God, the exalted Jesus in his spiritual body consisting of flesh and bone, God's anointed King interceding and mediating on our behalf. I surely don't see my Lord and Savior as a "mere man"!!!

Yep, "against MY shepherd, against the man who stands next to me" and that which was declared when the Shepherd was struck - the sheep were scattered.

 

[Brian2]

"for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law" - IOW, even those whose wrong doing was not considered sin before the law.
"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses (before the law), even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." The judgment of death was upon all humanity. Therefore, ALL humanity were "dead in trespasses and sins" not through any fault of their own but because of Adam's transgression. Doesn't matter if you call it the "propensity to sin" or the "sin nature" - all humanity has it, i.e. inherited it from Adam. (I don't feel the necessity to say "except Jesus" each time. I would think you would know what I mean)

Those who lived between Adam and Moses did sin, or so it says, and that is why they were dead in their sins. It is not a fault that God condemns people for, it is the sinning that people are condemned for, not having the sin nature or propensity to sin.

I understand that the OT law was a shadow of what was to come. If Jesus is God, how is He our High Priest and the Lamb sacrificed to God?
I am going to assume that you are referring to Psalm 43:11 - "I, I am Yahweh and besides me there is no savior." Why automatically leap to the conclusion that since God said "besides me there is no Savior" that Jesus is God?
What do we do with OT verses wherein God sent "saviors" (Neh. 9:27; 2 Kings 13:5; Obadiah 21) to deliver the Israelites out of their troubles? Do we leap to the same conclusion?
But "God exalted Jesus at his right hand as Leader and Savior to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins". (Acts 5:31)
"Of this man's offspring (David the son of Jesse) God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised". (Acts 13:23)
Ultimately God is the Savior, who brought about our eternal salvation through Jesus Christ - "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Jude 25)

If Jesus can be both the sacrificer (High Priest) and sacrifice (Lamb) then Jesus can also be God imo, not the Father but Divine, the Son who is one with the Father.
(Christians are not one with the Father, we are one with each other.)

Jesus resisted temptation because he chose to obey God.
I am not saying that it was easier for him to resist the temptation without the sin nature.
Romans 5 specifically states how sin and it's consequence entered the world, i.e. through one man. However that occurs - the sin nature has passed on to ALL humanity (except Jesus) through one man. Jesus had to be "a lamb without blemish" - the sin nature would have blemished him even without falling for the temptations.

How would a propensity to sin blemish Jesus if He never did sin? That would make Him more righteous and would mean that He was made like His brothers and sisters in all ways.

What sort of "Son of God" John was wanting us to believe in???? If John wrote about Jesus and the many signs he did in the presence of the disciples through the power of God his Father and then said that he wrote so that we would believe in this Son of God then that is who he wants us to believe in. I don't believe that he wanted us to ever believe that the Son of God was actually God but the one who was prophesied in the OT, the only begotten Son of God whom God gave so that mankind could believe in him and receive eternal life. The man, the suffering servant, who would shed his blood for the remission of sins, etc.
Seems to me that if God was coming to earth as a man - He would have simply said that. As in "For I so loved the world, that I am giving myself, that anyone who believes in me should not perish but have everlasting life."
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do my will but the will of him who sent me." So, God came down from heaven not to do His own will but the will of Him who sent me. Who sent Him?

You are sounding more like soapy.
The sort of Son of God John was talking about is the sort that John portrayed in his gospel. The one who came from heaven where He was with His Father in glory, the one who was in His Father and in whom His Father was, the one who was one with His Father, the one whom Thomas called "My Lord and My God", the Son through whom all things were made, the one who was the only begotten (the unique Son) the one who owns all that His Father has, the one who loves us so much that He sacrificed Himself for us, the one who is called God in John's gospels and is exactly like His Father, God.

I have said this before but you insist on putting "the" God in the verse and it is not there. OT believers knew the Messiah would be a man sent from/by God. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the apostles all knew that the Messiah would be a man sent from/by God because that is what was prophesied through God's word. They never would have thought God was coming to earth as a man (which I believe was Gnostic but I am not sure). God's logos became flesh; what God promised via His spoken and written word became flesh.

John 1:1 reads "In beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was God".
The translation of the last "God" is disputed. In a monotheist religion, it does not mean "a god". It is distinguished from "the God" He was with by not putting a "the" in front of it. It seems to mean imo (and in what many say) that the Word was exactly like the God He was with, and that includes being alive. An unliving Word is not exactly like the living God.
This also goes along with those who say that it means that the Word was God (God alongside the God He was with, but the God He was with was the one who had the title of God. The God was, is, the Father and Jesus is exactly like Him (including being alive) and is God with Him.
What does that last "God" in John 1:1 mean in your opinion?

So, Jesus did have a split personality - He had a divine will and a human will. The human will could decide to sin but the divine will could not sin.
I know what James 1:14-16 says - Jesus didn't allow the temptation to dwell on his mind but immediately shut it down by "It is written."

If you want to say Jesus had a split personality, go for it, but you should say the same about Christians who also have the will of their carnal nature and the will of their reborn spiritual nature. (see Romans 8)

Have you ever looked at the definition for distinct? There is one God who is the Father and Jesus Christ who is His Son and they are totally distinguished in scripture.

They are not totally distinguished when only the Son is coming to judge and in the OT it is YHWH who is coming to judge, when the stone of stumbling and rock of offense is YHWH in the OT and in the New it is Jesus, when Jesus is called God in the NT, when Jesus says that He and the Father are one, when YHWH sends an angel (messenger) (The Angel of YHWH) who identifies as YHWH and is identified by others as YHWH. When only God is good and Jesus is seen as being good. When YHWH is called the first and the last and the Alpha and Omega and Almighty God, and Jesus is called the same. When God sits on the throne and Jesus is in the midst of the throne. When YHWH is said to be the only King over Israel and Jesus is said to be the King, when all things are said to have been created through the Son......etc
There is a blurring of the edges at times but we still have monotheism and the Father and Son as being distinguished from each other.
iow Jesus is more than a man who was created 2000 years ago.

What grammar am I stepping away from? John 10:30 can be taken ontologically - as in the nature of a being or it can be taken functionally as in that which relates to the purpose which flows with John 17 when Jesus prays for those who believe in him to be "one with them"; and also with the body of Christ being "one". I take it functionally which does nothing to the grammar but it does have a lot to do with the understanding.

I always find non trinitarians saying that John 17 says that believers are to be one with them, when in fact it says they are to be one (with each other).

I know: His "human will" was put aside and it was his "divine will" which overcame sin.

Just as happens when believers overcome temptation and follow the Spirit instead of their carnal/fleshly nature. (Romans 8)

The "exact imprint" - an imprint is a mark imprinted upon something - as in the exact figure of Lincoln being imprinted upon a penny - the penny itself is not Lincoln!!! So, if the "exact imprint" is an imprint of an image then the imprint is not identical with the original.

How many times do I need to agree with you about this before you see I am agreeing? A son has a copy of the nature/essence of his father, as Jesus has. There is no variation between the nature Jesus has and the nature the Father has. They are both God natures.

The "whole of God" didn't become a man just 1/3 of Him? God the Holy Spirit remained a Spirit - God the Father remained a Spirit but "God the Son" became a man????? Okay, sure!

You are definitely sounding like soapy and implying that the Son is the totality of God.
Sure the Father and Holy Spirit reside in the Son, but it was the Son who became a man and the Holy Spirit and the Father (only true God) did not become men.

 

[amazing grace]

Those who lived between Adam and Moses did sin, or so it says, and that is why they were dead in their sins. It is not a fault that God condemns people for, it is the sinning that people are condemned for, not having the sin nature or propensity to sin.

I believe it says that "sin was indeed in the world" but sin was not accounted because there was no law - there was no law between Adam to Moses but people still sinned and received the judgment of death for those sins - Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses. The wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. All men from Adam on have the sin nature/propensity to sin and have this judgment of death.

If Jesus can be both the sacrificer (High Priest) and sacrifice (Lamb) then Jesus can also be God imo, not the Father but Divine, the Son who is one with the Father.
(Christians are not one with the Father, we are one with each other.)

The priest offers the sacrifice - "For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." - Jesus laid down his life as the sacrifice, a Lamb without blemish to God on behalf of men.
John 17:11b) "Holy Father, keep them in your name which you have given me, that they may be one even as we are one." . . . 20) I do not ask for these only but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. . . . 23) I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one..."
And all those who believe in Jesus: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit, we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. [1 Cor. 12:12-14] Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. [1 Cor. 12:27] Jesus's prayer answered!!!

How would a propensity to sin blemish Jesus if He never did sin? That would make Him more righteous and would mean that He was made like His brothers and sisters in all ways.

The judgment of death was passed to all humanity through one man's sin, Adam's regardless if you sin or not - or do you know of another human being who has never sinned?
Jesus likewise (paraplesios - similarily, in like manner) partook (metecho - became a partaker) of flesh and blood = humanity.
Jesus was a partaker in a similar manner, i.e. flesh and blood but he did not have the sin nature/propensity to sin that the rest of humanity gained through the one man's, Adam's transgression being miraculously conceived via the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High.
Did that make Jesus any better than us - no, he had to REMAIN without sin throughout his life in order to make propitiation for the sins of humanity. It was the fact that he remained sinless that enabled Jesus to become our merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God.

You are sounding more like soapy.
The sort of Son of God John was talking about is the sort that John portrayed in his gospel. The one who came from heaven where He was with His Father in glory, the one who was in His Father and in whom His Father was, the one who was one with His Father, the one whom Thomas called "My Lord and My God", the Son through whom all things were made, the one who was the only begotten (the unique Son) the one who owns all that His Father has, the one who loves us so much that He sacrificed Himself for us, the one who is called God in John's gospels and is exactly like His Father, God.

Yes, John portrayed in his gospel a man that was empowered by God his Father. The one who was sent by God, who came from God, i.e. came from heaven where God is!!!! Yes, God the Father was IN Christ, Christ was IN God his Father and if we are born again then we also are IN Christ who was IN God the Father.
The one whom Thomas acknowledged as "My Lord and My God" BUT like other words theos carries many meanings (one of which, of course, leans toward the Trinity) - the one I believe to fit the concept of monotheism is: whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way, God's representative or viceregent - I do not believe Thomas meant the only true God the Father but in the sense "whoever has seen me has seen the Father" - the one who fully represents the one true God.
Yep, John portrayed Jesus as the unique, miraculously conceived, the only begotten Son of God. Jesus, who was given all that he possessed by God his Father. Jesus, whom God gave because He loved the world so much and the Christ who loved us and gave himself for us. The Son of God who is NOT the only true God, because the only true God is the Father.

John 1:1 reads "In beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was God".
The translation of the last "God" is disputed. In a monotheist religion, it does not mean "a god". It is distinguished from "the God" He was with by not putting a "the" in front of it. It seems to mean imo (and in what many say) that the Word was exactly like the God He was with, and that includes being alive. An unliving Word is not exactly like the living God.
This also goes along with those who say that it means that the Word was God (God alongside the God He was with, but the God He was with was the one who had the title of God. The God was, is, the Father and Jesus is exactly like Him (including being alive) and is God with Him.
What does that last "God" in John 1:1 mean in your opinion?

John 1:1 (ESV) 1) In the beginning was the Word and 2) the Word was with God, and 3) the word was God. (KJV) 1) In the beginning was the Word, and 2) the Word was with God, and 3) the Word was God. I believe the whole of the verse is saying that 1) God's word was in the beginning, 2) God's word was with God (as our words are with us and usually begin in our minds as a thought, a plan) and 3) the Word was God not in a equivalent manner but in a qualitative sense - what God was the word was. I don't read "Jesus" INTO this scripture

If you want to say Jesus had a split personality, go for it, but you should say the same about Christians who also have the will of their carnal nature and the will of their reborn spiritual nature. (see Romans 8)

Nope, it wouldn't apply to us because we are definitely not God as you say Jesus is. There are not two opposing wills in God! Jesus had his own will - Jesus had his own thoughts and emotions but he always put his will in subjection to the will of his Father.

When we are born again and we partake of the divine nature but we have "the old man", our sin nature, still residing in us which we have to "put off" and we have to "put on the new man" - Jesus never had "the old man", the sin nature!!!

They are not totally distinguished when only the Son is coming to judge and in the OT it is YHWH who is coming to judge, when the stone of stumbling and rock of offense is YHWH in the OT and in the New it is Jesus, when Jesus is called God in the NT, when Jesus says that He and the Father are one, when YHWH sends an angel (messenger) (The Angel of YHWH) who identifies as YHWH and is identified by others as YHWH. When only God is good and Jesus is seen as being good. When YHWH is called the first and the last and the Alpha and Omega and Almighty God, and Jesus is called the same. When God sits on the throne and Jesus is in the midst of the throne. When YHWH is said to be the only King over Israel and Jesus is said to be the King, when all things are said to have been created through the Son......etc
There is a blurring of the edges at times but we still have monotheism and the Father and Son as being distinguished from each other.
iow Jesus is more than a man who was created 2000 years ago.

"The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son . . ." (John 5:22) God's judgment comes through His Son.
Yes, God was the stone of stumbling and rock of offense in the OT (Isaiah 8:14) - Then in Isaiah 28:16 He says that He is the one "who has laid as a foundation a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone of a sure foundation" and then in 1 Peter 2:6-8 we see these applicable to Jesus: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame". . . The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. . . A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.
So, basically, you are saying that because Jesus shares the qualities and titles of God that makes him God?

I always find non trinitarians saying that John 17 says that believers are to be one with them, when in fact it says they are to be one (with each other).

I went back and read John 17 and I do not see where it says they are to be one with each other.

Just as happens when believers overcome temptation and follow the Spirit instead of their carnal/fleshly nature. (Romans 8)

addressed above

How many times do I need to agree with you about this before you see I am agreeing? A son has a copy of the nature/essence of his father, as Jesus has. There is no variation between the nature Jesus has and the nature the Father has. They are both God natures.

Because the Son is a "copy", he is not the "original", i.e. God.

You are definitely sounding like soapy and implying that the Son is the totality of God.
Sure the Father and Holy Spirit reside in the Son, but it was the Son who became a man and the Holy Spirit and the Father (only true God) did not become men.

I am just trying to follow your logic and believe me it ain't easy!!!

 

[Brian2]

You do believe in the "immortal soul" which had its roots in Greek paganism. Where does the "soul" go?
In Hebrew "praise" means to give thanks, laud, praise or to confess, confess (the name of God)

I believe in what the Bible tells us about the soul. It lives on after the death of the body (Matt 10:28) and God can destroy it.
I have read that the word for "praise" that is used to say that there is not "praise" in the afterlife, is the word that is specifically used for public worship. No public worship in the afterlife. Well it is a place of silence after all.
Sheol/Hades is the place of the dead souls but I believe for saved Christians, we go to be with the Lord at death of the body. (hence Phil 1:23 and 1Thess 4:14-17 where Jesus brings back the dead in Christ on His return, to be resurrected into their resurrection body)

Body, soul and spirit (sometimes referred to the "spirit of man") is what makes up the whole of man. When a person dies the whole person dies.
God will redeem our whole body at the resurrection. We will be judged - those judged righteous to eternal life - those judged unrighteous to the lake of fire (gehanna) where the body and soul will be destroyed.

So what do you think Jesus meant at Matt 10:28?

It is speaking of man and man's complete self. A person dies and is buried (sown a natural body) to await the resurrection when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live (raised a spiritual body).

I trust you have read the passage so know it is speaking about the type of body we have in the resurrection. I suppose if you think that our body is all there is to us then it is speaking of man and man's complete self. But our body is not all there is to us humans.

What was Paul's better option between living or dying? It was departing and being with Christ.

How could Paul depart and be with Christ if he was non existent when dead?
Strong's Greek: 1063. γάρ (gar) -- for, indeed (a conjunc. used to express cause, explanation, inference or continuation)

I believe this to be a parable because it lies within the context of other parables: the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10); the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12); the parable of the fig tree (Luke 13); the parable of the wedding feast (Luke 14); the parable of the great banquet (Luke 14); the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15); the parable of the lost coin (Luke 15); the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15); the parable of the dishonest manager (Luke 16); the parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18).

Maybe it is a parable but it shows the beliefs of the Jews about death which they had at that time and had for a few hundred years before Jesus came. (Sheol was the place of dead souls who were conscious and some were being comforted and some suffering) And Jesus used those beliefs as if they were true.

In the day we die our thoughts perish (Ps. 146:4); we have no remembrance of God (Ps. 6:5); the dead no nothing and have no memory (Ecc. 9:5); there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol (the grave). [Ecc. 9:10]

Psalm 146:4--a better translation is "our plans perish" It does not teach that we have no consciousness.
Ps 6:5--Psalm 88:12, it is called a land of forgetfulness. We do not know what is happening on the earth and we end up forgetting it, sounds a bit like a half dream state, and we don't have public worship. And this is in Sheol, which is not the grave, pit, it is the place of the dead souls.
The soul can be destroyed in the second death.
I suppose you don't see that if we go out of existence, we cannot be resurrected bodily, all that can happen is that God makes a copy of us,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which is not us.
How do I know it is not us? Because God could do the same thing now, make a copy of me, so there would be 2 of me, and only the original would be me.

When Jesus died how was he deprived from the presence of God if he is God?
Of course, he did not suffer the second death! The second death is reserved for the unrighteous.

God does not leave Jesus imo but Jesus is made to experience nothing of God's presence. (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) He had to suffer the complete death that sinners will suffer.

That doesn't really answer what I asked - I didn't ask if Jesus changed the glory of the immortal God into mortal man - I know HE didn't - He reflected God's glory.

I asked if YOU think that by YOU believing that God came to earth as a man; i.e. Jesus are YOU exchanging the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal man?

No, I still know the awesome otherness of God and how we cannot even imagine what God is like.

 

[Soapy]

the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of creation. He is the firstfruits of the new creation,

What exactly do you mean by:

1. [Jesus is] the image of the invisible God
2. [Jesus is] the firstborn of creation

Can an IMAGE of something be that thing it images? Surely the image can only do what the source shows itself doing… Surely the image can only speak what the source first speaks?
Moses did the mighty works of God and spike the mighty words of God.., but no one calls Moses, God!

 

[Brian2]

I have NEVER said that any of Hebrews is not about Jesus.

Sorry, my mistake. You say that Heb 1:10 is about the new heavens that the new earth and that Heb 1:11-12 is about this present heavens and earth even though it says:
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.”

IOW the passage itself indicates that the heavens and earth in verse 10 is the same heavens and earth in verses 11 and 12.

v6) "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? 7a) You have made him for a little while lower than the angels," - this is when Jesus was alive on earth.
7b) "you have crowned him with glory and honor putting everything in subjection under his feet. . . ." 9) "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." - after his death and resurrection . . . 3b) he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high 4) having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
This whole section of scripture is comparing the exalted resurrected Jesus with the angels - he was made lower but after his death and resurrection he was exalted and became much more superior to angels - so v6) And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says "Let all God's angels worship him." - relates to the "firstborn from the dead".

Heb 2:6-9 I agree with your interpretation.
Heb 1:3-4 I agree also.
I don't see Heb 1:6 as being post resurrection. It does not say "When he brings the firstborn into the world again...."
The "and again" is saying that God has said this also.

Now, I believe that vs 10-12 refer to the new heavens and the new earth (the world to come) BUT if we don't want to see it as Jesus creating the world to come and it refers to the Gen. 1 creation - it would still apply to God the Father: v10 is a continuation of v9 because of "AND" (a conjunction used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly) - after "therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions. AND you, Lord (referring to God from v9) laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 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.
Oh wow!!! even after my stance throughout, I believe the above to be a more correct reading - It is surprising what comes out when things are read thoroughly! Now after seeing it in this manner - it's clearer that when Hebrews is speaking about "the world to come" it's referring to Jesus's superiority to the angels. I love it when I have a light bulb moment!

Sorry to have to turn off you light bulb but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the AND connects one quote about Jesus to another about Jesus.
We see these devices all through Heb 1,,,,,,,,,,,, at the start of verse 5, half was thru verse 5, at the start of verses 6,7,8,10and 13.

If Jesus is God how is he sitting next to himself? If Jesus is God how is he an associate, confidante and partner of himself?
I see the Lamb of God, the exalted Jesus in his spiritual body consisting of flesh and bone, God's anointed King interceding and mediating on our behalf. I surely don't see my Lord and Savior as a "mere man"!!!

That is a soapy one. You are suggesting that the Father and Son cannot be 2 distinct persons if they are both God.
So it is a matter of you having to be able to fully understand what God is or God cannot be it if you do not understand.
I don't say it is easy to understand the trinity and I don't say that we should be even able to fully understand God.

 

[Brian2]

What exactly do you mean by:

1. [Jesus is] the image of the invisible God
2. [Jesus is] the firstborn of creation

It means that He is exactly like the invisible God.
It means that He is the preeminent one of the whole of creation,,,,,,,,,,,,, which He stepped into when He came from heaven and became a man.
He was not created because the next verse tells us that all things were created through Him, meaning that He cannot be one of the created things.

Can an IMAGE of something be that thing it images? Surely the image can only do what the source shows itself doing… Surely the image can only speak what the source first speaks?
Moses did the mighty works of God and spike the mighty words of God.., but no one calls Moses, God!

No the image of something is not the thing it images and the Son is not the Father.
In a mirror, the image is not another being and the image only does what the thing it images does,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, at the same time pretty much.
Jesus is the Son who is exactly like His Father and can do everything that His Father does but does not run around showing off what He can do, He waits for His Father to do things (meaning start doing things) and does the same thing. eg The Father says, "Let there be light" and the Son creates light. All things were created that way, through the Son. He has not the authority from His Father to run around doing whatever He wants.
No Moses was not God, Moses was a man only and never compared to God or called the image of the invisible God etc.

 

[amazing grace]

I believe in what the Bible tells us about the soul. It lives on after the death of the body (Matt 10:28) and God can destroy it.
I have read that the word for "praise" that is used to say that there is not "praise" in the afterlife, is the word that is specifically used for public worship. No public worship in the afterlife. Well it is a place of silence after all.
Sheol/Hades is the place of the dead souls but I believe for saved Christians, we go to be with the Lord at death of the body. (hence Phil 1:23 and 1Thess 4:14-17 where Jesus brings back the dead in Christ on His return, to be resurrected into their resurrection body)

So what do you think Jesus meant at Matt 10:28?

What happens to the "soul"? Where does it go?
I do not read in Matt. 10:28 that the soul lives on after death. I posted what I believe Matt. 10:28 means: "Body, soul and spirit (sometimes referred to the "spirit of man") is what makes up the whole of man. When a person dies the whole person dies.
God will redeem our whole body at the resurrection. We will be judged - those judged righteous to eternal life - those judged unrighteous to the lake of fire (gehanna) where the body and soul will be destroyed."

I trust you have read the passage so know it is speaking about the type of body we have in the resurrection. I suppose if you think that our body is all there is to us then it is speaking of man and man's complete self. But our body is not all there is to us humans.

above

How could Paul depart and be with Christ if he was non existent when dead?
Strong's Greek: 1063. γάρ (gar) -- for, indeed (a conjunc. used to express cause, explanation, inference or continuation)

IMHO - Paul was talking the furtherance of the gospel: 12) I want you to know brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel . . . . 13b) that my imprisonment is for Christ, 14) and most of the brothers having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 20b-24) but with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain. (either way the gospel will be preached) If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two (life or death) My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better (than life or death). But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.
Which would be better for the furtherance of the gospel - his life or his death - but what he truly wanted was to depart and be with Christ which would happen at the resurrection the return of Christ. What would be his dilemma if death brought him to Christ?https://biblehub.com/greek/1063.htm

Maybe it is a parable but it shows the beliefs of the Jews about death which they had at that time and had for a few hundred years before Jesus came. (Sheol was the place of dead souls who were conscious and some were being comforted and some suffering) And Jesus used those beliefs as if they were true.

Psalm 146:4--a better translation is "our plans perish" It does not teach that we have no consciousness.
Ps 6:5--Psalm 88:12, it is called a land of forgetfulness. We do not know what is happening on the earth and we end up forgetting it, sounds a bit like a half dream state, and we don't have public worship. And this is in Sheol, which is not the grave, pit, it is the place of the dead souls.
The soul can be destroyed in the second death.
I suppose you don't see that if we go out of existence, we cannot be resurrected bodily, all that can happen is that God makes a copy of us,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which is not us.
How do I know it is not us? Because God could do the same thing now, make a copy of me, so there would be 2 of me, and only the original would be me.

Where do our plans originate? In our thoughts? No plans, no thoughts = no consciousness
Ps. 6:5 The Psalmist is talking to Yahweh when he says: "In death there is no remembrance of you; In Sheol (the grave) who will give you praise?" (who will worship you); Ps. 88:12 What is the land of forgetfulness? The grave!!! "Is your stedfast love declared in the grave, or your faithfulness in destruction? Are your wonders known in the darkness, or your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?"
"Sheol" is the place of the dead - where do the dead go? to the grave.
If God can create the heavens and earth, then I have no problem believing that He is very capable to resurrect us into our new spiritual bodies.

God does not leave Jesus imo but Jesus is made to experience nothing of God's presence. (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) He had to suffer the complete death that sinners will suffer.

I was just going by what you said. Yes, Jesus had to die.

No, I still know the awesome otherness of God and how we cannot even imagine what God is like.

"The awesome otherness of God" - Is that biblical and where is that phrase and what exactly does it mean? We know what God is like through the life of His Son, Jesus Christ - after all Jesus declared, made Him known.

 

[amazing grace]

Sorry, my mistake. You say that Heb 1:10 is about the new heavens that the new earth and that Heb 1:11-12 is about this present heavens and earth even though it says:
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.”

IOW the passage itself indicates that the heavens and earth in verse 10 is the same heavens and earth in verses 11 and 12.

The above was actually a waste of your time for if you just had continued reading you will see where I had a moment.

Heb 2:6-9 I agree with your interpretation.
Heb 1:3-4 I agree also.
I don't see Heb 1:6 as being post resurrection. It does not say "When he brings the firstborn into the world again...."
The "and again" is saying that God has said this also.

I understand the sequence in which "and again" is used.
Why would God have to say "again"? Why should we not draw that conclusion from 1:6 when in the previous verses it just spoke of Jesus making purification for sins (death), and that upon being raised he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, which is why he is now much superior to angels because of the resurrection from the dead, i.e. the firstborn from the dead.

Sorry to have to turn off you light bulb but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the AND connects one quote about Jesus to another about Jesus.
We see these devices all through Heb 1,,,,,,,,,,,, at the start of verse 5, half was thru verse 5, at the start of verses 6,7,8,10and 13.

Sorry, but it didn't turn off any light bulb moment for me! AND is used to connect word of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences. The clause or sentence that the AND is connecting is - "therefore God, YOUR God has anointed you with the oil of gladness - the "you Lord" refers to the previous clause or sentence and harmonizes with Genesis 1.

That is a soapy one. You are suggesting that the Father and Son cannot be 2 distinct persons if they are both God.
So it is a matter of you having to be able to fully understand what God is or God cannot be it if you do not understand.
I don't say it is easy to understand the trinity and I don't say that we should be even able to fully understand God.

Actually, I am not "suggesting" that 2 distinct persons cannot both be God ---- I don't agree that 2 distinct persons can both be God.
I believe there is only one God and that throughout scripture He is referred to as the Father, the only true God. I believe just as God said --- Jesus is His Son and that is good enough for me.

 

[Brian2]

I understand the sequence in which "and again" is used.
Why would God have to say "again"? Why should we not draw that conclusion from 1:6 when in the previous verses it just spoke of Jesus making purification for sins (death), and that upon being raised he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, which is why he is now much superior to angels because of the resurrection from the dead, i.e. the firstborn from the dead.

Because from Heb 1:5 to Heb 1:13 there are a series of OT quotes which relate to Jesus. "And again" is just an introduction to another of those quotes.

Sorry, but it didn't turn off any light bulb moment for me! AND is used to connect word of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences. The clause or sentence that the AND is connecting is - "therefore God, YOUR God has anointed you with the oil of gladness - the "you Lord" refers to the previous clause or sentence and harmonizes with Genesis 1.

The "and" is also just an introduction to another of those OT quotes about Jesus also.

 

[Brian2]

The priest offers the sacrifice - "For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." - Jesus laid down his life as the sacrifice, a Lamb without blemish to God on behalf of men.
John 17:11b) "Holy Father, keep them in your name which you have given me, that they may be one even as we are one." . . . 20) I do not ask for these only but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. . . . 23) I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one..."
And all those who believe in Jesus: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit, we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. [1 Cor. 12:12-14] Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. [1 Cor. 12:27] Jesus's prayer answered!!!

Yes Jesus prayer was answered and believers are one, one body of Christ, not one with the Father and Son, but one with each other. As I have highlighted in your quote, the prayer was for the believers to be one.

The judgment of death was passed to all humanity through one man's sin, Adam's regardless if you sin or not - or do you know of another human being who has never sinned?
Jesus likewise (paraplesios - similarily, in like manner) partook (metecho - became a partaker) of flesh and blood = humanity.
Jesus was a partaker in a similar manner, i.e. flesh and blood but he did not have the sin nature/propensity to sin that the rest of humanity gained through the one man's, Adam's transgression being miraculously conceived via the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High.
Did that make Jesus any better than us - no, he had to REMAIN without sin throughout his life in order to make propitiation for the sins of humanity. It was the fact that he remained sinless that enabled Jesus to become our merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God.

Yes He remained sinless and it did not matter if He had the sin nature, that was not a fault when He overcame it and remained sinless.

John 1:1 (ESV) 1) In the beginning was the Word and 2) the Word was with God, and 3) the word was God. (KJV) 1) In the beginning was the Word, and 2) the Word was with God, and 3) the Word was God. I believe the whole of the verse is saying that 1) God's word was in the beginning, 2) God's word was with God (as our words are with us and usually begin in our minds as a thought, a plan) and 3) the Word was God not in a equivalent manner but in a qualitative sense - what God was the word was. I don't read "Jesus" INTO this scripture

"What God was the Word was" ----so we agree about the qualitative sense and in that case we should also agree that the Word was alive and had all the other qualities that a living God has.

Nope, it wouldn't apply to us because we are definitely not God as you say Jesus is. There are not two opposing wills in God! Jesus had his own will - Jesus had his own thoughts and emotions but he always put his will in subjection to the will of his Father.

Yes as a man with a carnal nature His will was sometimes at odds with the will of His Father, but His ultimate will, the will of His God nature, was to do the will of His Father.

When we are born again and we partake of the divine nature but we have "the old man", our sin nature, still residing in us which we have to "put off" and we have to "put on the new man" - Jesus never had "the old man", the sin nature!!!

Jesus still had a body of flesh, a carnal nature that wanted to do it's own thing instead of the will of God. He was able because He had the God nature in Him from birth, that is who He was, the Son of God, with the same nature, the nature that the darkness cannot overcome.

"The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son . . ." (John 5:22) God's judgment comes through His Son.

And Jesus is the one who is coming to earth to judge it. In the OT it says YHWH is coming.
They are both correct and also that the Father is not going to be judging is correct.

Yes, God was the stone of stumbling and rock of offense in the OT (Isaiah 8:14) - Then in Isaiah 28:16 He says that He is the one "who has laid as a foundation a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone of a sure foundation" and then in 1 Peter 2:6-8 we see these applicable to Jesus: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame". . . The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. . . A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.
So, basically, you are saying that because Jesus shares the qualities and titles of God that makes him God?

Yes of course I am saying that. Nobody is like YHWH or has His glory or can be compared to Him. But Jesus is and has and can be, so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Jesus has to be YHWH.
But in the NT quote about the stone of stumbling etc I was just pointing out that the OT quotes about YHWH are about Jesus in the NT.
YHWH alone created, Jesus created etc.

I went back and read John 17 and I do not see where it says they are to be one with each other.

Really? How about the stuff I highlighted in the John 17 quote you gave above? That says that.

Because the Son is a "copy", he is not the "original", i.e. God.

But as the OT says, nobody is like YHWH and as the NT says, Jesus is exactly like YHWH.
Jesus is YHWH is what is being said.
Jesus is the Son of God who came from God and has the nature of God, that is the type of Son that Jesus was teaching in John's gospel. Jesus, the Divine Son, not Jesus a created son like anyone else.
Christians should believe in Jesus the Divine Son, not Jesus a created Son. All sorts of religions would say that Jesus is a created son and that is not what John meant that he wanted us to believe about Jesus (John 20:31)

 

[Brian2]

What happens to the "soul"? Where does it go?
I do not read in Matt. 10:28 that the soul lives on after death. I posted what I believe Matt. 10:28 means: "Body, soul and spirit (sometimes referred to the "spirit of man") is what makes up the whole of man. When a person dies the whole person dies.
God will redeem our whole body at the resurrection. We will be judged - those judged righteous to eternal life - those judged unrighteous to the lake of fire (gehanna) where the body and soul will be destroyed."

The soul goes to sheol/hades usually, but it seems (according to Paul) that the soul of believers goes to be with the Lord at the death of the body.
If you are reading the same verse (Matt 10:28) then you should be reading that those who kill the body cannot kill the soul. So the logic that follows is that at the death of our body our soul does not die.
But no, you want the verse to read that the soul dies at the death of the body.
I call that a place where you have been made blind to the meaning of that part of the verse. (and of course it goes on to say that the body and soul can be destroyed in Gehenna, but that is after the judgement, not at the death of the body)

above

And yes, 1Cor 15 is speaking about the type of body we have at the resurrection (which it does say it is speaking about).
The soul is reunited with the body at the resurrection.

IMHO - Paul was talking the furtherance of the gospel: 12) I want you to know brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel . . . . 13b) that my imprisonment is for Christ, 14) and most of the brothers having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 20b-24) but with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain. (either way the gospel will be preached) If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two (life or death) My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better (than life or death). But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.
Which would be better for the furtherance of the gospel - his life or his death - but what he truly wanted was to depart and be with Christ which would happen at the resurrection the return of Christ. What would be his dilemma if death brought him to Christ?Strong's Greek: 1063. γάρ (gar) -- for, indeed (a conjunc. used to express cause, explanation, inference or continuation)

Phil 1:23, Paul is speaking about the advancement of the gospel AND about departing and being with Christ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and yes, he could not depart and be with the Lord if he was non existent at the death of his body,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, he must be teaching that he still lives at the death of his body,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just as Jesus did in Matt 10:28.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1063.htm

Where do our plans originate? In our thoughts? No plans, no thoughts = no consciousness
Ps. 6:5 The Psalmist is talking to Yahweh when he says: "In death there is no remembrance of you; In Sheol (the grave) who will give you praise?" (who will worship you); Ps. 88:12 What is the land of forgetfulness? The grave!!! "Is your stedfast love declared in the grave, or your faithfulness in destruction? Are your wonders known in the darkness, or your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?"
"Sheol" is the place of the dead - where do the dead go? to the grave.
If God can create the heavens and earth, then I have no problem believing that He is very capable to resurrect us into our new spiritual bodies.

If we are non existent then there is nothing to resurrect. God would have to make a copy that thought it was us but logically could not be.
I guess that is why our souls do not die at the death of the body, so we can be resurrected for the judgement etc.
Sheol and the grave are different in the OT scriptures.
If I was in sheol in darkness, in silence, I would drift off to sleep and start forgetting the earth etc.

"The awesome otherness of God" - Is that biblical and where is that phrase and what exactly does it mean? We know what God is like through the life of His Son, Jesus Christ - after all Jesus declared, made Him known.

No I don't think it is a Biblical phrase even though the concept is Biblical. God is different to us humans, higher in every way, even though we are made in His image.

 

[Brian2]

The above was actually a waste of your time for if you just had continued reading you will see where I had a moment.

I think I don't want to waste my time any more with this discussion.
Thanks for your time.
See you around.

 

[amazing grace]

Because from Heb 1:5 to Heb 1:13 there are a series of OT quotes which relate to Jesus. "And again" is just an introduction to another of those quotes.

The "and" is also just an introduction to another of those OT quotes about Jesus also.

Show me in the OT from the record of Genesis where Jesus is said to have had a hand in laying the foundation of the earth in the beginning - v10?
Yes, I said I understood the "and again".

 

[amazing grace]

The soul goes to sheol/hades usually, but it seems (according to Paul) that the soul of believers goes to be with the Lord at the death of the body.
If you are reading the same verse (Matt 10:28) then you should be reading that those who kill the body cannot kill the soul. So the logic that follows is that at the death of our body our soul does not die.
But no, you want the verse to read that the soul dies at the death of the body.
I call that a place where you have been made blind to the meaning of that part of the verse. (and of course it goes on to say that the body and soul can be destroyed in Gehenna, but that is after the judgement, not at the death of the body)

And yes, 1Cor 15 is speaking about the type of body we have at the resurrection (which it does say it is speaking about).
The soul is reunited with the body at the resurrection.

Phil 1:23, Paul is speaking about the advancement of the gospel AND about departing and being with Christ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and yes, he could not depart and be with the Lord if he was non existent at the death of his body,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, he must be teaching that he still lives at the death of his body,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just as Jesus did in Matt 10:28.
Strong's Greek: 1063. γάρ (gar) -- for, indeed (a conjunc. used to express cause, explanation, inference or continuation)

If we are non existent then there is nothing to resurrect. God would have to make a copy that thought it was us but logically could not be.
I guess that is why our souls do not die at the death of the body, so we can be resurrected for the judgement etc.
Sheol and the grave are different in the OT scriptures.
If I was in sheol in darkness, in silence, I would drift off to sleep and start forgetting the earth etc.

No I don't think it is a Biblical phrase even though the concept is Biblical. God is different to us humans, higher in every way, even though we are made in His image.

Correct, it is not a Biblical phrase nor is the concept Biblical. Correct, God is higher in every way than those He created - yet the doctrine of the Trinity brings Him down to the level of humanity which IMO is exchanging the glory of the immortal God to an image resembling mortal man.

Okay, thanks for the discussion.

 

[SDavis]

How strange that you say that Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus was created yet the trinitarian definition is that Jesus was the first begotten (Born)

• Heb Strong: H1060 H6363 H7218 H7223
  1. 1) the firstborn
     1a) of man or beast
     1b) of Christ, the first born of all creation

I understand that you understand it as you think, today. But the foundation of trinitarianism is that Jesus was the first born of all of God’s creations.

That was realised as not in keeping with an ETERNALLY AND PRE-EXISTENT GOD therefore the ideology was changed to say that Jesus was ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN… a ridiculous concept.

This underlines the ever changing trinity ideology of which I have spoken much about - The ideology rests on having several lines of argument that can be used at different (or the same) time to wriggle out of a difficult situation:

1. Jesus was begotten (born) by God as he first of God’s creation
2. Jesus was never born but rather was eternally begotten by (born of) God

(Jesus is constantly entitled, the Son of God, yet trinity cannot define what it means by ‘a Son’, let alone ‘Son OF God’. Yet they joyfully claim that GOD is Jesus’ Father… some as a ‘Copy’ of God, and others as being ‘Image’. But all deny that he was CREATED before the world was created since Jesus, they say, was the one who created all things… ummm…. But trinity claim is that Jesus IS the first of God’s creations… first of GOD’s CREATIONS!!! But not only that but Jesus, himself says: “I can ONLY DO what I see the Father doing’! So how did Jesus CREATE ALL THINGS if the Father didn’t created BEFORE Jesus?)

1. Jesus is God who knows all things
2. Jesus is a man who does not know all things (in fact, only what God shows him!)

(How can a single person both know and not know all things at the same time - and when do they decide that they know and don’t know all things!?)

1. Jesus died on the cross
2. Jesus did not die - only his body died!

(Why does the Christian world commemorate the death of Jesus Christ yearly when the pinnacle of Christian belief says that Jesus did not die?
What difference was there between Jesus dying and another human being dying… The Spirit of a man, at death, goes inert, resting with God: ‘Father, into thy hands I commit my Spirit!’. The body, without the spirit, is subject to decay. GOD put Jesus’ spirit BACK into the body BEFORE it could decay. God also made the body of Jesus a GLORIFIED body, an ETERNAL BODY, which will never die, immortal, not subject to death!)

1. Jesus RESUMED being God when GOD raised him up to Heaven
2. Jesus is a glorified man in Heaven

(If Jesus RESUMED being God then that means he WAS NOT GOD before he resumed being God! What was he before he resumed being God? Trinity reading of Phil 2 is that Jesus gave up being God…!!! Wow!!! But that then qualifies the trinity claim that he RESUMED being God.
But how does that figure with him being a man in Heaven? God is not a man so how has Jesus RESUMED being God but yet is a man in Heaven. How has he resumed being in the glory he had with God (???)… he wasn’t a man when he supposedly had glory with God before creation?)

1. Jesus is ‘He who is, was, and always will be’
2. Jesus is ‘He that was dead, BUT IS NOW alive forevermore

(If Jesus was dead at one point then it cannot be said that he has been eternal. Moreover, he says that he is NOW ETERNAL… which is from when he was resurrected by God: ‘Raised up never to taste death again!’
Only Almighty God:YHWH, the Father, has been, is, and always will be, Eternal

1. Jesus is “He that sat on the throne”
2. Jesus is the lamb - looking as though slaughtered - in the front of the throne, in the middle, AMONG the 24 elders and four beasts who are around his throne.

(The 24 and four are CREATED BEINGS and the Lamb is a created being!
Trinity claim is that Jesus is therefore BOTH GOD seated on the throne (‘The ancient of days’ from the night vision of Daniel) AND the Lamb looking like it had been slaughtered (or ‘The one like a son of man’ - a human being, from the night vision of Daniel)…)

Only replying to your first sentence _ the only begotten is not the first creation _ only begotten means born of a woman in a flesh body by the process of reproduction and woman. Difference being she was engulfed with the Holy Spirit and not sexually - (one can say artificially inseminated.) Mankind were already created.

 

[Soapy]

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

That is very interesting to see how you are thinking…

So if a child (a Son) is said to be exactly like his Father then, to you, that child has a beard, a deep voice, has a requirement to look after his family, is qualified to a high level of education… (which HIS FATHER taught him!) and is married?