"I came down from heaven"

[Vail Lifted]

Isn't he the son of Joseph? How is it he says "I came down from heaven"?

Well, you need to think spiritually(spirit) rather than carnally (flesh).

"The words I speak are spirit and truth" said Jesus. His words are therefore the words of the Spirit which dwelt fully in him.So what was it(he) who came down from heaven? He (it) was the Spirit of the Father that DECENDED on the son. The words the son speaks are the words of the Father by the Spirit of the Father. And if the Spirit of the Father is the Father, then it was the Father, by His Spirit that came down from heaven whereby the doctrines Jesus taught were not his own (he says) but the Father's.

 

[Right Divider]

Isn't he the son of Joseph? How is it he says "I came down from heaven"?

Well, you need to think spiritually(spirit) rather than carnally (flesh).

"The words I speak are spirit and truth" said Jesus. His words are therefore the words of the Spirit which dwelt fully in him.So what was it(he) who came down from heaven? He (it) was the Spirit of the Father that DECENDED on the son. The words the son speaks are the words of the Father by the Spirit of the Father. And if the Spirit of the Father is the Father, then it was the Father, by His Spirit that came down from heaven whereby the doctrines Jesus taught were not his own (he says) but the Father's.

:dizzy:

What nonsense!

The Word was with God and the Word was God.... and the Word was made flesh... John 1:1 & 1:14

 

[Vail Lifted]

So you don't believe Jesus when he tells us that the words he speaks are not his own but the Father's? Or when he says that the works he does are the Father's? Or when his says "of myself I can do nothing"? or when he says the doctrines he teaches are the Father's? Or when he says the words I speak are spirit and truth? Or that the spirit was given to him without measure? Or that Jesus died and God can not? Or that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are and the Father can not be tempted with evil?......the list goes on and on but that should suffice for now.

Oh btw, a big applause for your intelligent response.
Is John 1:1 the only verse in the Scripture you think you understand?

 

[Right Divider]

So you don't believe Jesus when he tells us that the words he speaks are not his own but the Father's? Or when he says that the works he does are the Father's? Or when his says "of myself I can do nothing"? or when he says the doctrines he teaches are the Father's? Or when he says the words I speak are spirit and truth? Or that the spirit was given to him without measure? Or that Jesus died and God can not? Or that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are and the Father can not be tempted with evil?......the list goes on and on but that should suffice for now.

That's not a list. It's just a rambling paragraph.

Your problem, like many other anti-Biblical, anti-trinitarians is that you fail to understand the TWO natures of the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 1:1 makes it clear that the Word was BOTH with God and was God. John goes on to teach that this same Word was made flesh. God in the flesh.

In other places in the scripture it clearly describes the Holy Spirit as God, but the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.

It's just that simple.

 

[Vail Lifted]

That's not a list. It's just a rambling paragraph.

Your problem, like many other anti-Biblical, anti-trinitarians is that you fail to understand the TWO natures of the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 1:1 makes it clear that the Word was BOTH with God and was God. John goes on to teach that this same Word was made flesh. God in the flesh.

In other places in the scripture it clearly describes the Holy Spirit as God, but the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.

It's just that simple.

The Scripture NEVER says Jesus had two natures. What's the point of God giving Jesus of His own spirit without measure if Jesus already had the nature of God?

Some even suggest that Jesus laid aside his deity to become a man so that what? His Father could give to Jesus all that He himself possesses. Talk about nonsense!

Here's the idea. The son lays aside his Godness to become a man but still retains his Godness. he simply refuses to avail himself of the Godness he has. And in turn the Father gives the son of His Godness in full measure.

How moronic can one get?

 

[Right Divider]

The Scripture NEVER says Jesus had two natures.

Of course it does. See what I mean about you being anti-Biblical?

What's the point of God giving Jesus of His own spirit without measure if Jesus already had the nature of God?

I never claimed any such thing.

Questions for you:

• Was Jesus God?
• Was Jesus man?

(Hint: both answers are 'yes')

Some even suggest that Jesus laid aside his deity to become a man so that what? His Father could give to Jesus all that He himself possesses. Talk about nonsense!

I could care less what "some suggest".

Here's the idea. The son lays aside his Godness to become a man but still retains his Godness. he simply refuses to avail himself of the Godness he has. And in turn the Father gives the son of His Godness in full measure.

How moronic can one get?

Since I don't believe that and since that is NOT what the doctrine of the trinity teaches.... it's completely IRRELEVANT.

 

[Vail Lifted]

Of course it does. See what I mean about you being anti-Biblical?

No it does not! And the same verse you interpret to claim the two natures is also the same verse used by MANY Trinitarians to claim that Jesus laid aside his Godness.

You know the verse. "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

Other translations imply the complete opposite of what the KJV says. Read them for yourself.

In any case, Trinitarians suggest that that verse proves Jesus was God before becoming man. And if God, he has to have all the attributes of God.

I never claimed any such thing.

Questions for you:

• Was Jesus God?
• Was Jesus man?

(Hint: both answers are 'yes')

I could care less what "some suggest".

Would you call them Trinitarians who claim Jesus laid aside his Godness?

They do so in an attempt to understand how Jesus could rely so heavily on his Father. But yet they can't see the nonsense of their ideas.

Since I don't believe that and since that is NOT what the doctrine of the trinity teaches.... it's completely IRRELEVANT.

You'd be surprised how many different ideas of Trinity there are out there.

 

[Right Divider]

No it does not! And the same verse you interpret to claim the two natures is also the same verse used by MANY Trinitarians to claim that Jesus laid aside his Godness.

Once AGAIN... those are two different things. I could care less about those that think that "Jesus laid aside his Godness". That has NOTHING to do with the doctrine of the trinity.

So you can continue to beat the air with your attempted FALSE association, It's irrelevant.

You know the verse. "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

Other translations imply the complete opposite of what the KJV says. Read them for yourself.

Do you just "translation shop" until you find one that agrees with your false doctrine?

In any case, Trinitarians suggest that that verse proves Jesus was God before becoming man. And if God, he has to have all the attributes of God.

Indeed He does have all the attributes of God, since He is God (John 1:1 & 1:14, among many others).

Would you call them Trinitarians who claim Jesus laid aside his Godness?

Once AGAIN, you try to DISTRACT with this IRRELEVANT off-topic side show.

They do so in an attempt to understand how Jesus could rely so heavily on his Father. But yet they can't see the nonsense of their ideas.

It seems like they have some problems similar to you. They fail to understand the TWO natures of the Lord Jesus Christ.

You'd be surprised how many different ideas of Trinity there are out there.

So what? That in no way invalidates the Biblical doctrine of the trinity. That is just more fallacious logic on your part.

 

[Vail Lifted]

Once AGAIN... those are two different things. I could care less about those that think that "Jesus laid aside his Godness". That has NOTHING to do with the doctrine of the trinity.

So you can continue to beat the air with your attempted FALSE association, It's irrelevant.


Do you just "translation shop" until you find one that agrees with your false doctrine?


Indeed He does have all the attributes of God, since He is God (John 1:1 & 1:14, among many others).


Once AGAIN, you try to DISTRACT with this IRRELEVANT off-topic side show.


It seems like they have some problems similar to you. They fail to understand the TWO natures of the Lord Jesus Christ.


So what? That in no way invalidates the Biblical doctrine of the trinity. That is just more fallacious logic on your part.

John 1:1 states that the word was with God and the word was God

So it is the word, not Jesus, that John refers to. When the word is made flesh then Jesus becomes what the word represents. Jesus is then called the Word of God.

Jesus did not have two natures. His first nature was flesh and blood man. When he was raised from the dead to die no more his nature became immortal
That's what to die no more means.

 

[Right Divider]

John 1:1 states that the word was with God and the word was God

So far, so good.

So it is the word, not Jesus, that John refers to.

Wrong... the Word was made flesh... that is God made flesh... Jesus is the WORD and He was made flesh.

When the word is made flesh then Jesus becomes what the word represents. Jesus is then called the Word of God.

That is WRONG and anti-Biblical. Jesus was NOT "then called the Word of God". You JUST quoted John 1:1 which says that WORD WAS GOD and yet you think that this "Word" was temporal and not eternal.

Jesus did not have two natures.

When the WORD became FLESH, He sure did.

His first nature was flesh and blood man.

WRONG again... His first nature was God per John 1:1.

When he was raised from the dead to die no more his nature became immortal
That's what to die no more means.

:juggle:

Off on another one of your tangents.

 

[Lon]

So you don't believe Jesus when he tells us that the words he speaks are not his own but the Father's? Or when he says that the works he does are the Father's? Or when his says "of myself I can do nothing"? or when he says the doctrines he teaches are the Father's? Or when he says the words I speak are spirit and truth? Or that the spirit was given to him without measure? Or that Jesus died and God can not? Or that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are and the Father can not be tempted with evil?......the list goes on and on but that should suffice for now.

Of course we believe Him. That is why we are "Tri-" "-une." You simply miss HALF of scripture revelation. Don't think we don't agree on a lot of points, it is just that we don't cut off John 1:1 or rationalize John 20:28. You miss a LOT of scripture when you tell God what He can and cannot do. It is human rationalizing instead of scripture-following.

Oh btw, a big applause for your intelligent response.
Is John 1:1 the only verse in the Scripture you think you understand?

Is it 'Veil" or "Vail?" :think: Do YOU really want to get into a battle over intelligence???

 

[Vail Lifted]

So far, so good.


Wrong... the Word was made flesh... that is God made flesh... Jesus is the WORD and He was made flesh.


That is WRONG and anti-Biblical. Jesus was NOT "then called the Word of God". You JUST quoted John 1:1 which says that WORD WAS GOD and yet you think that this "Word" was temporal and not eternal.


When the WORD became FLESH, He sure did.


WRONG again... His first nature was God per John 1:1.


:juggle:

Off on another one of your tangents.

Two natures what a load of dung that is. You make Jesus to have a split personality.
Oh let's see .... Well when it wasn't his will to suffer and die he was speaking from his human side?
Laughable.

 

[Vail Lifted]

if Jesus is called the word of God, then it is a name he is called. That's why the Scripture says "his NAME is called The Word of God.

Jesus says that he came IN THE NAME of his Father. Jesus has taken on several names of his God and Father.

Everlasting Father. Mighty God. YHWH. God. The LORD God of Israel....

Think it not strange because God has done it before. God told Moses that he was sending an angel and that "My name is in him" said God.

Now some have erroneously said that the angel was Jesus before he was born. However, God tells us this: "to which of the angels said He any time 'you are my son, today have I begotten you'?. The answer is no angel has God said that.

So how is that Jesus could be begotten from all eternity as Trinitarians claim and have also been the angel whom God placed His name if God has said at no time to any angel "you are my son, today have I begotten you"?

 

[Vail Lifted]

Is it 'Veil" or "Vail?" :think: Do YOU really want to get into a battle over intelligence???

I'll take your challenge anytime you're ready!

How bout you start by addressing the many comments refuting Triniarianism i have already posted.

Or how bout simply start with this one:

Who died on the cross?

The Scripture tells us it was the Prince of life, the Christ, Jesus, the son of man, and God's own son who was killed.

Now, which one is the God who can not die?

 

[meshak]

The Scripture NEVER says Jesus had two natures. What's the point of God giving Jesus of His own spirit without measure if Jesus already had the nature of God?

Jesus made it clear that He cannot do anything on His own.

Jesus is always submissive to His Father.

Jesus is His Father's faithful Servant and our Brother.


He also said His Father is greater than He.


He also said that His Father is His God and our God.

Trinitarians dismiss all those simple and clear statements of Jesus.

 

[Gary K]

I'll take your challenge anytime you're ready!

How bout you start by addressing the many comments refuting Triniarianism i have already posted.

Or how bout simply start with this one:

Who died on the cross?

The Scripture tells us it was the Prince of life, the Christ, Jesus, the son of man, and God's own son who was killed.

Now, which one is the God who can not die?

You just refuted your own argument. God cannot die so it was the Son of Man who died. It was Jesus human nature that died on the cross.

You might study the concept of ga'al from the OT. It makes sense out of all of this for every time you find the word redeemer in the OT it is translated from the Hebrew word ga'al. That word expresses the idea of the kinsman redeemer found in Hebrew law. You will find the most thorough example of it in the book of Ruth. What the law of the kinsman redeemer says, basically, is that if an Israelite had to sell himself, his family, or his land, to pay his debts his closest relative able to pay the debt could "redeem" him from the hand of his creditor/s.

This law was given by God for it reflects what happened in heaven in the planning of how God would redeem us. Jesus came to earth and was born a human being so that he could legally redeem us from our debt of sin. We could never pay that debt, but as both God and man Jesus could. He fit all the requirements to do so by being born as a human being. Jesus didn't give up His Godhood when He became man. He simply set it aside, veiled it so to speak, and took on the form of man so that He could pay our penalty/debt and redeem us from our great adversary the devil.

It's a very interesting study. I spent several months studying it all out. I have 50 megs of text files on what I found.

 

[meshak]

You just refuted your own argument. God cannot die so it was the Son of Man who died. It was Jesus human nature that died on the cross.

God made Him immortal after Jesus accomplished His mission of being the Lamb.

 

[Vail Lifted]

You just refuted your own argument. God cannot die so it was the Son of Man who died. It was Jesus human nature that died on the cross.

You might study the concept of ga'al from the OT. It makes sense out of all of this for every time you find the word redeemer in the OT it is translated from the Hebrew word ga'al. That word expresses the idea of the kinsman redeemer found in Hebrew law. You will find the most thorough example of it in the book of Ruth. What the law of the kinsman redeemer says, basically, is that if an Israelite had to sell himself, his family, or his land, to pay his debts his closest relative able to pay the debt could "redeem" him from the hand of his creditor/s.

This law was given by God for it reflects what happened in heaven in the planning of how God would redeem us. Jesus came to earth and was born a human being so that he could legally redeem us from our debt of sin. We could never pay that debt, but as both God and man Jesus could. He fit all the requirements to do so by being born as a human being. Jesus didn't give up His Godhood when He became man. He simply set it aside, veiled it so to speak, and took on the form of man so that He could pay our penalty/debt and redeem us from our great adversary the devil.

It's a very interesting study. I spent several months studying it all out. I have 50 megs of text files on what I found.

That's interesting. I was having a "discussion" with another member here who claims to have the correct understanding of trinity and who says Jesus or the son did not lay aside his Godhood to become a man.

Anyway, who's son is the son of man?

 

[Vail Lifted]

God made Him immortal after Jesus accomplished His mission of being the Lamb.

That's correct meshak. Paul clearly says the natural body comes first then the spiritual body by resurrection from the dead. The spiritual body is the glorified body which is immortal.

it's in the famous (or not so famous apparently) chapter 15 of the book of 1 Corinthians.

"The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified." said Jesus. He was referring to his death and resurrection in glory by his God.

 

[Vail Lifted]

God made Him immortal after Jesus accomplished His mission of being the Lamb.

That's correct meshak. Paul clearly says the natural body comes first then the spiritual body by resurrection from the dead. The spiritual body is the glorified body which is immortal.

it's in the famous (or not so famous apparently) resurrection chapter (15) of the book of 1 Corinthians.

"The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified." said Jesus. He was referring to his death and resurrection in glory by his God.