Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[Randy]

Please quote me something he said or did in the Old Testament.

Please give me an example of what you believe a Christian church is.


Just refers to the context of the church. There are too many examples of Jesus not being the creator or God not speaking through the Son for that to be literal. Yes, it's true that the writers in the Bible did exaggerate sometimes because they are speaking about a context. The furthest thing from their mind is that somehow people would completely misunderstand a human being as God. It goes without saying that a human like Jesus isn't God and doesn't require an explanation.


Please pay particularly close attention to what the passage below says. The "Son of Man" refers to Jesus being a human. This is how the language of son of man is used throughout the Bible; it's in regards to being a human. Jesus didn't literally exist in heaven as a human being.

See the comparison being made between Jesus and what Moses did. God told Moses to create an image of a snake and put it on a pole. If someone got bitten by a snake and looked at this snake image, they would get better and live. This story was a hint about Jesus sacrificing himself in the future. Jesus wasn't literally crucified by Romans in heaven before the world existed. Jesus is referring to what God had planned for him.

John 3
13No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.


There are others who agree with me and I with them. I came here to fellowship with Christians and discuss the Bible. What did you come here for?

The NT testimonies given you already should be enough. You don't believe anything in regard to the Son who was.
You stated "outreach" not me. You have come here with that agenda is clear all. You have centered yourself in discussions regarding the doctrine of the trinity which you don't hold to and expressed nothing but Biblical Unitarian doctrines. The very fact that they started their own church with their own name and doctrines states they hold themselves apart from the Churches of Christ in name and theology. Its works the other way around to they hold you apart from them as well.

You wanted were Jesus stated He was before all things.

But you couldn't even accept this and it was His statement.
You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”


We disagree. I don't need to show you anymore as you hold to your unbelief.

 

[Hopeful 2]

It was reasoned at Nicene to deaf ears if Jesus was begotten of the Father, then He has a beginning.
A born Son of the Father even if He was the firstborn of all creation as in before all things. The firstborn of God. The Firstborn and you will read, "The church of the Firstborn in Hebrews", which would be a beginning at some point in history before the world began. We also do read in Him the fullness was pleased to dwell. All the fullness of God from the will of another. The Father in the Son and the Son in the Father. "Oneness" As in one God and one Lord in a distinction made. From whom all things came vs through whom all things came as another distinction made.

Jesus was the first born of God in creation, but not born until Mary had Him.
It didn't happen BEFORE all of creation.
But it was certainly planned before creation.

And stating one from another as in a Son of another without a starting point to establish "from" does seem like an impossibility in any meaning of the word from or only begotten Son of "another". Such a foundation is a "mystery".

It is no mystery, unless some wayward folks try to instill their own mind's thoughts into the subject.
God and the Word both knew from time immemorial that the Word would take on flesh and be born of a virgin

You disagree from another point not that He had a beginning but He wasn't a Son of the Father in the beginning.

Correct.
God and the Word both knew what would eventually happen, but it didn't actually occur until the time was right.

The Word wasn't identified as the Father and the Father wasn't identified as the Word so how are they one God in your thinking?

They are one in every aspect of their personalities.

As is reasoned by Free then the one known as the Father wouldn't be known as that either. What are you naming Him in that beginning?

Which Him ?
I call them God and the Word, just as John 1 states.

The Church states true God from true God eternally begotten of the Father. Begotten without a beginning. The only begotten unbegotten Son. Isn't that reasonable to all? Come on, get with the program.

As I said above, both God and the Word knew from before any beginning what was going to eventually occur.
Begotten without beginning is an oxymoron.
Apparently we have different ideas of what is a "church".

Jesus didn't seem to get confused on who He was as in He is the very same person not something newly recreated.

What is your source of info on that ?

That "He" came down from heaven.

He, the Word made flesh, came down from heaven, and was born as Jesus Christ.

Though the church states He had a rational soul and a human body. So, soul and body were made human in Mary's womb.

What "church" is this ?
An inhuman soul and body being made human in a woman.
Not in my house.

One may then ask what part of Him was God if body and soul were human and also ask what part of Him actually came down from heaven? One might reason the Son who was, His Spirit, was in that body not that He had a human soul but the soul of the Firstborn in that body with the Deity of the Father dwelling in Him. But again, that would suggest a beginning and God forbid we can't have that can we? The Church states all of Him was God and all of Him was human. But that wasn't really explained as just stated so. Again, another Mystery.

Or just another doctrine of men.

"Father into your hands I commit My spirit."

No mystery there.

A foundation of Mystery.

A foundation of sand.

Your line of thought, "He could not exist as Son because for them ‘the Son had a beginning, namely, at the Incarnation, thus ‘the term Son always has reference to the Incarnation, to the humanity in which God dwelt and revealed Himself’" while not unique to you is a deviation from orthodoxy. May God have mercy on your soul. (smile)

If your orthodoxy preached freedom from sin, they might be worth following up on.
But they don't.

 

[Randy]

Please quote me something he said or did in the Old Testament.

He wasn't revealed until the NT. I already gave you Peter's words of Prophets searching intently in the past by the Spirit of Christ in them. You can't accept anything.
Christ stated this and it was one of the citations used in His writing about the Son.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, my God

Please give me an example of what you believe a Christian church is.

Not someone called "biblical unitarian"
Not any body of believers that deny the preexistence of the Son which was taught and proclaimed by the Apostles.
He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.

Just refers to the context of the church. There are too many examples of Jesus not being the creator or God not speaking through the Son for that to be literal. Yes, it's true that the writers in the Bible did exaggerate sometimes because they are speaking about a context. The furthest thing from their mind is that somehow people would completely misunderstand a human being as God. It goes without saying that a human like Jesus isn't God and doesn't require an explanation.

John, the writer of Hebrews and Paul all state God created through and by Jesus. That is to be taken literal.
Even one of your favorite verses states in the same context all things that came from the Father came through Jesus. You only believe half of that verse because as you point out the Son of Man wasn't in heaven. But the Son was.

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Please pay particularly close attention to what the passage below says. The "Son of Man" refers to Jesus being a human. This is how the language of son of man is used throughout the Bible; it's in regards to being a human. Jesus didn't literally exist in heaven as a human being.

The word became flesh. Hello?

See the comparison being made between Jesus and what Moses did. God told Moses to create an image of a snake and put it on a pole. If someone got bitten by a snake and looked at this snake image, they would get better and live. This story was a hint about Jesus sacrificing himself in the future. Jesus wasn't literally crucified by Romans in heaven before the world existed. Jesus is referring to what God had planned for him.

He was chosen before the world began just as those in Him were.
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he b predestined us for adoption to sonship c through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

John 3
13No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.

Your reasoning is so warped. He testified to what He has seen and heard.
The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony

There are others who agree with me and I with them. I came here to fellowship with Christians and discuss the Bible. What did you come here for?

You came here to sow discord. You clearly promote Unitarian doctrine which so far seems the extent of your biblical discussion. If anyone here agrees Jesus is just a glorified Man then they most likely are also Unitarians.

 

[Randy]

Jesus was the first born of God in creation, but not born until Mary had Him.
It didn't happen BEFORE all of creation.
But it was certainly planned before creation.

It is no mystery, unless some wayward folks try to instill their own mind's thoughts into the subject.
God and the Word both knew from time immemorial that the Word would take on flesh and be born of a virgin

Correct.
God and the Word both knew what would eventually happen, but it didn't actually occur until the time was right.

They are one in every aspect of their personalities.

What about Deity?
Col 1:19

Which Him ?
I call them God and the Word, just as John 1 states

Implies 2 Gods in that beginning for the word was God and the word was with God.
The Church's intent was to show One God as in Jesus eternally begotten from the Father true God from true God before all things. Understood Jesus “to be the proper offspring of the Father’s substance.(A Son)Both coeternal, coequal John 1:18 The begotten one who came down from the Fathers presence. One would need to make a case that John's use of begotten means eternally begotten as there would be no history of such usage to state the only begotten child of a parent that has no beginning before or after Jesus. But the creed means eternally begotten.

As I said above, both God and the Word knew from before any beginning what was going to eventually occur.
Begotten without beginning is an oxymoron.
Apparently we have different ideas of what is a "church".

As I stated the Word is stated as God. So God and God knew? God knew as Jesus was chosen before the creation of the world.

What is your source of info on that ?

He, the Word made flesh, came down from heaven, and was born as Jesus Christ.

What "church" is this ?
An inhuman soul and body being made human in a woman.
Not in my house.

The statement endorsed at this council (known as the “Chalcedonian Definition”) insists that Christ not only had a human body but a human “rational soul.”

Or just another doctrine of men.

No mystery there.

A foundation of sand.

If your orthodoxy preached freedom from sin, they might be worth following up on.
But they don't.

We were made free from the power of sin and can overcome the pull to sin by the Spirit of Christ in us. We still live in the flesh which is usually identified as the sinful nature. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"
Romans 8
Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

john 8:34
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

 

[Runningman]

The NT testimonies given you already should be enough. You don't believe anything in regard to the Son who was.
You stated "outreach" not me. You have come here with that agenda is clear all. You have centered yourself in discussions regarding the doctrine of the trinity which you don't hold to and expressed nothing but Biblical Unitarian doctrines. The very fact that they started their own church with their own name and doctrines states they hold themselves apart from the Churches of Christ in name and theology. Its works the other way around to they hold you apart from them as well.

Yes, I knew you wouldn't be able to quote even a single line by Jesus, the Son, the Messiah, etc from the Old Testament. It doesn't exist because he didn't exist. It's not sound theology to to conjure up a "pre-existence" doctrine when there is simply no proof for it. This exercise was just to let you discover this on your own, in your own way, because you won't hear the truth from me.

You wanted were Jesus stated He was before all things.

But you couldn't even accept this and it was His statement.
You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

According to scripture, Jesus is not the I AM because he isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is God's servant, not God. See below.

Only the I AM is remembered as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is remembered as his servant. Jesus is not the I AM, not God, not YHWH, etc.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

Exodus 3
14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.

We disagree. I don't need to show you anymore as you hold to your unbelief.

Okay, you're free to stop interacting with me if you wish. I will not go the extra mile with you if you no longer want it.

 

[Hopeful 2]

What about Deity?
Col 1:19

From "Oxford Languages"...Deity: divine status, quality, or nature.
Jesus certainly had those attributes.
Thankfully the reborn have the last two !

Implies 2 Gods in that beginning for the word was God and the word was with God.

Capital "W" for the name "Word".

The Church's intent was to show One God

What "church" ?

as in Jesus eternally begotten from the Father true God from true God before all things.

So two Gods ?

Understood Jesus “to be the proper offspring of the Father’s substance.

Jesus was the off-spring of God, but He was also the Word made flesh.

(A Son)Both coeternal, coequal John 1:18 The begotten one who came down from the Fathers presence. One would need to make a case that John's use of begotten means eternally begotten as there would be no history of such usage to state the only begotten child of a parent that has no beginning before or after Jesus. But the creed means eternally begotten.

Don't add to what is actually written in scripture.

As I stated the Word is stated as God.

Yes, they are one.

So God and God knew?

God and the Word knew.

God knew as Jesus was chosen before the creation of the world.

God knew the Word would put on flesh for the redemption of mankind. ( and other things too )

The statement endorsed at this council (known as the “Chalcedonian Definition”) insists that Christ not only had a human body but a human “rational soul.”

Though true, I wonder what their motive was to make such an obvious point.
They were possibly fighting against the heretics who were saying the opposite.

We were made free from the power of sin and can overcome the pull to sin by the Spirit of Christ in us. We still live in the flesh which is usually identified as the sinful nature. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"

That doctrine is trying to blame your skin and bones for what the mind initiates.
The skin and bones have no inherent power to cause anyone to commit sin.
The mind is in control !
Besides, the reborn of God are new creatures.
No longer that which was born of Adam's seed.
That doctrine is just another accommodation for ongoing sinfulness.

Romans 8
Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

Yep, a before and after conversion story.

john 8:34
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

The Son freed me from service to sin.
He will free everyone who submits to Him.

 

[Randy]

Yes, I knew you wouldn't be able to quote even a single line by Jesus, the Son, the Messiah, etc from the Old Testament. It doesn't exist because he didn't exist. It's not sound theology to to conjure up a "pre-existence" doctrine when there is simply no proof for it. This exercise was just to let you discover this on your own, in your own way, because you won't hear the truth from me.


According to scripture, Jesus is not the I AM because he isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is God's servant, not God. See below.

According to Jesus He was before Abraham was born.

Only the I AM is remembered as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is remembered as his servant. Jesus is not the I AM, not God, not YHWH, etc.

Jesus wasn't answering someone who asked Him "What is your name as Moses asked God" He was responding to :your not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham" Before Abraham was born I AM.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

Yes, the Father is the one who glorifies His Son.

Exodus 3
14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.


Okay, you're free to stop interacting with me if you wish. I will not go the extra mile with you if you no longer want it.

I have gone the extra mile for you as well but you don't seem to hear anything in regard to the Son who was who came down from heaven. So yes there is no need to continue as we are going in circles.

 

[Randy]

From "Oxford Languages"...Deity: divine status, quality, or nature.
Jesus certainly had those attributes.
Thankfully the reborn have the last two !

Col 1:19 -"was pleased" -from the will of another. All the fullness of the living God the Father dwells in Him
The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father -They are one and in that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Capital "W" for the name "Word".

What "church" ?

So two Gods ?

Jesus was the off-spring of God, but He was also the Word made flesh.

Don't add to what is actually written in scripture.

Yes, they are one.

God and the Word knew.

God knew the Word would put on flesh for the redemption of mankind. ( and other things too )

Though true, I wonder what their motive was to make such an obvious point.
They were possibly fighting against the heretics who were saying the opposite.

If Jesus had a human soul and a human body what part of Him was God?
The only Deity I read dwelling in Him is the Fathers.
Well, if that was there motive why then do you disagree with Jesus being eternally begotten by the Father as a Son?

That doctrine is trying to blame your skin and bones for what the mind initiates.
The skin and bones have no inherent power to cause anyone to commit sin.
The mind is in control !
Besides, the reborn of God are new creatures.
No longer that which was born of Adam's seed.
That doctrine is just another accommodation for ongoing sinfulness.

The mind "controlled by the flesh" brings death.
If by the Spirit you put to death the "deeds of the body" you will live.
Only those born of God have the Spirit of Christ in them and He has set them free from being slaves to sin

Yep, a before and after conversion story.

The Son freed me from service to sin.
He will free everyone who submits to Him.

I have the Spirit of Christ in me and have loved and believed in Him as far back as my memory Goes.
My Lord is all that the Father is and has always been the Son.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus wasn't answering someone who asked Him "What is your name as Moses asked God" He was responding to :your not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham" Before Abraham was born I AM.

Jesus isn't the I AM. Acts 3:13 and Exodus 3:14,15 prove that beyond a doubt. Jesus is God's servant, not God.

The matter with John 8:58 is your interpretation of what you think it says. Since it's contrary to the scripture I provided you then Jesus being the I AM is not sound doctrine.

You may be wondering why it says what it does. Most likely bias inserted by the translators. Imagine translating a document with the assumption that Jesus is God. Bias would automatically effect the translation.

So, in John 8:58 it is printed that Jesus said "I am" when these very words are spoken all over the New Testament by miscellaneous people who were not claiming to be God. It basically means, "I am he" or "I am the one" or "I am the man" in most translations, but the context effects it. In John 8:40 Jesus said he is a man, therefore in John 8:58 Jesus is basically saying he is the man who was prophesied about before Abraham. That's the only thing that makes sense since if you will go back and look at the writings before Abraham, there is no mention of a Son, Messiah, Jesus, etc saying or doing anything.

Hence Jesus said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see My day. He saw it and was glad.” Abraham was looking forward in faith, seeing is believing, about the future Messiah.

I hope this helps your unbelief. God bless.

 

[Runningman]

He was responding to :your not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham" Before Abraham was born I AM.

I forgot to mention something. Jesus never said he saw Abraham. This was a classic gaslighting technique used by people in arguments, i.e., it was strawman. His accusers had no idea what Jesus was talking about and were just throwing out things hoping something stuck. I hope that helps.

 

[Randy]

Jesus isn't the I AM. Acts 3:13 and Exodus 3:14,15 prove that beyond a doubt. Jesus is God's servant, not God.

The matter with John 8:58 is your interpretation of what you think it says. Since it's contrary to the scripture I provided you then Jesus being the I AM is not sound doctrine.

In response to your not 50 years old and you have seen Abraham -You bet its clear to me and "most" others who proclaim faith in Christ.
"The glory I had with you before the world began"

John 17:5 Greek Text Analysis

biblehub.com

Doesn't state before all things as Paul stated but its certainly before Mary.

You may be wondering why it says what it does. Most likely bias inserted by the translators. Imagine translating a document with the assumption that Jesus is God. Bias would automatically effect the translation.

I know Him. I ask things of Him my whole life. He answers prayer. Do you ever ask anything of Him? "He has always been the Son"
For this you will need to seek truth from Him in this Doctrine of discussion. "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and Us" The Spirit speaks only what He hears not on His own.

So, in John 8:58 it is printed that Jesus said "I am" when these very words are spoken all over the New Testament by miscellaneous people who were not claiming to be God. It basically means, "I am he" or "I am the one" or "I am the man" in most translations, but the context effects it. In John 8:40 Jesus said he is a man, therefore in John 8:58 Jesus is basically saying he is the man who was prophesied about before Abraham. That's the only thing that makes sense since if you will go back and look at the writings before Abraham, there is no mention of a Son, Messiah, Jesus, etc saying or doing anything.

Dear God Man:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together

Hence Jesus said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see My day. He saw it and was glad.” Abraham was looking forward in faith, seeing is believing, about the future Messiah.

Jesus stated a beginning before Abraham. Its not about Abraham its about Jesus.

I hope this helps your unbelief. God bless.

We disagree in who is not believing.
I guess you will find out as flesh is mortal.

 

[Randy]

I forgot to mention something. Jesus never said he saw Abraham. This was a classic gaslighting technique used by people in arguments, i.e., it was strawman. His accusers had no idea what Jesus was talking about and were just throwing out things hoping something stuck. I hope that helps.

It's what those who were there understood about what Jesus stated in regard Abraham. That doesn't help your case because Jesus replied to what they stated which is shown not assumed.

 

[Runningman]

In response to your not 50 years old and you have seen Abraham -You bet its clear to me and "most" others who proclaim faith in Christ.
"The glory I had with you before the world began"

John 17:5 Greek Text Analysis

biblehub.com

The glory Jesus had before the world began he had not yet been glorified with because he was not yet crucified. Jesus proved his faith in his God with obedience and a sacrifice well-pleasing before God. None of this literally happened until after he was born.

I know Him. I ask things of Him my whole life. He answers prayer. Do you ever ask anything of Him? "He has always been the Son"
For this you will need to seek truth from Him in this Doctrine of discussion. "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and Us" The Spirit speaks only what He hears not on His own.

Of course I have a relationship with the only true God, the Father (John 17:3) and I belong to Jesus. Jesus belongs to God. I understand God's place, Jesus' place, and mine in this relationship. I do fully believe in prayer and spiritual gifts and have experienced them both.

Dear God Man:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together

I wouldn't consider this to be literal since the "image of God" being a creator isn't scripture. A better translation isn't "by" him "all things" were created, but rather "through" him. This isn't literally about all of creation since it's contradicted exhaustively throughout the Bible. The way I understand this passage is in regards to the church being created through Jesus. Keep reading to verse 20 because it ties it all together. None of it actually happened in the beginning, but rather by his blood on the cross. There's a context.

Jesus stated a beginning before Abraham. Its not about Abraham its about Jesus.

Hebrews 11, regarding Abraham and other examples, says:

13All these people died in faith, without having received the things they were promised. However, they saw them and welcomed them from afar. And they acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

If Jesus was literally existing before Abraham, and Abraham literally saw Jesus, then it doesn't follow that Abraham didn't receive the things he was promised. It refers to faith in the prophecies, the promise of the future Messiah. In contrast, God was already with Abraham. There's a big difference.

We disagree in who is not believing.
I guess you will find out as flesh is mortal.

 

[Runningman]

It's what those who were there understood about what Jesus stated in regard Abraham. That doesn't help your case because Jesus replied to what they stated which is shown not assumed.

I wouldn't say that those who had a stated intention to arrest and/or kill Jesus should be represented as having understood Jesus accurately. They were baiting him to commit blasphemy, a bait Jesus didn't take, and later denied directly.

False accusation:
John 10
33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

Denial of accusation:
John 10
36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

 

[Randy]

I wouldn't say that those who had a stated intention to arrest and/or kill Jesus should be represented as having understood Jesus accurately. They were baiting him to commit blasphemy, a bait Jesus didn't take, and later denied directly.

False accusation:
John 10
33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

Denial of accusation:
John 10
36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

He replied to what they stated as has been shown. None of what you try to explain away with other verses is relevant to the context in which He replied to "Your not yet 50 years old and you seen Abraham"

Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am

 

[Randy]

The glory Jesus had before the world began he had not yet been glorified with because he was not yet crucified. Jesus proved his faith in his God with obedience and a sacrifice well-pleasing before God. None of this literally happened until after he was born.

Is there any reason to continue this discussion?
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began

Of course I have a relationship with the only true God, the Father (John 17:3) and I belong to Jesus. Jesus belongs to God. I understand God's place, Jesus' place, and mine in this relationship. I do fully believe in prayer and spiritual gifts and have experienced them both.

I wouldn't consider this to be literal since the "image of God" being a creator isn't scripture. A better translation isn't "by" him "all things" were created, but rather "through" him. This isn't literally about all of creation since it's contradicted exhaustively throughout the Bible. The way I understand this passage is in regards to the church being created through Jesus. Keep reading to verse 20 because it ties it all together. None of it actually happened in the beginning, but rather by his blood on the cross. There's a context.


Hebrews 11, regarding Abraham and other examples, says:

13All these people died in faith, without having received the things they were promised. However, they saw them and welcomed them from afar. And they acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

If Jesus was literally existing before Abraham, and Abraham literally saw Jesus, then it doesn't follow that Abraham didn't receive the things he was promised. It refers to faith in the prophecies, the promise of the future Messiah. In contrast, God was already with Abraham. There's a big difference.

I see no reason to keep going in circles. Lets end this discussion. We disagree.

 

[eddif]

Yes, I knew you wouldn't be able to quote even a single line by Jesus, the Son, the Messiah, etc from the Old Testament. It doesn't exist because he didn't exist. It's not sound theology to to conjure up a "pre-existence" doctrine when there is simply no proof for it. This exercise was just to let you discover this on your own, in your own way, because you won't hear the truth from me.


According to scripture, Jesus is not the I AM because he isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is God's servant, not God. See below.

Only the I AM is remembered as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is remembered as his servant. Jesus is not the I AM, not God, not YHWH, etc.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

Exodus 3
14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.


Okay, you're free to stop interacting with me if you wish. I will not go the extra mile with you if you no longer want it.

Maybe I am in tedneck oberload,
But my children existed before they existed.

My wife had all the Genetics (Words) for years (sort of like Old Testament)

My part of the genetics came just before conception.

In the fullness of time the old and new merged.

We are made in the image of God. The (Old Word) became Flesh.

I know some can say, that symbolism has nothing to do with anything. We were made like we are to tell a story. The stars told a story for the wise men about the birth of Jesus.

IMHO the Word is part of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was the other influence.

Can I make it clearer? Not till the Resurrection.
I’m
Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Hopeful 2]

Col 1:19 -"was pleased" -from the will of another. All the fullness of the living God the Father dwells in Him
The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father -They are one and in that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

If Jesus had a human soul and a human body what part of Him was God?

The seed from which He was born.

The only Deity I read dwelling in Him is the Fathers.
Well, if that was their motive why then do you disagree with Jesus being eternally begotten by the Father as a Son?

Only the intention that the Word would eventually put on flesh and experience both life and death for mankind was eternal.
But the actual begetting of Jesus had a starting date, so not eternal.

The mind "controlled by the flesh" brings death.
If by the Spirit you put to death the "deeds of the body" you will live.
Only those born of God have the Spirit of Christ in them and He has set them free from being slaves to sin

That is right.

I have the Spirit of Christ in me and have loved and believed in Him as far back as my memory Goes.
My Lord is all that the Father is and has always been the Son.

Do you remember when you repented of sin ?
It was a kinda memorable moment for me.

 

[brother Paul]

The language of Nicea...One OUSIA in three Hypostases. Each deals with it as the Spirit has led them (assuming they actually have His Spirit and are being transformed into His image over time)

 

[Randy]

The seed from which He was born.

What seed as you believe body and soul were human and created in Mary? There is no other part of a being.
What part of Him came down from heaven? As He stated "He" came down from heaven.

You see the church I belong to believes the Son who was, His spirit, was in that body and the Father was living in Him.
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven.

He came down from heaven and He ascended to where He was before.

"Father into your hands I commit My spirit"

Only the intention that the Word would eventually put on flesh and experience both life and death for mankind was eternal.
But the actual begetting of Jesus had a starting date, so not eternal.

I didn't read that. What's your source? I read the only begotten that was in the Fathers presence. John 1:18
The beginning of the creation of God. Rev 3:14
The Firstborn of all creation.
In Him it did please the fullness to dwell. -From the will of another.Col 1:19
If the Spirit of Christ in a believer is a new creation then I would state the fullness in Christ, (col 1:19), qualifies as a creation of the Father.

That is right.

Do you remember when you repented of sin ?
It was a kinda memorable moment for me.

I have believed in and loved the Lord as far back as my memory goes.
I remember when I received the gift of God, Christ in me, and I rejoiced.