"I came down from heaven"

[Aimiel]

There's a hierarchy in the trinity?

They're co-equal but not co-equal?

I'm co-equal with my Father BUT He is greater than I?

Why not skip the co-equal language and simply say that Jesus' Father is greater than Jesus?

Jesus being God does not make Him co-equal. He said that His Father was Greater. I believe Him. I don't believe many false doctrines. I do believe that He is God, in The Flesh. I don't believe that there's a single denomination that has all doctrine correct, though there are more than a few that are very close on most. I believe that God made His Word controversial for many reasons; one of which being that it causes us to talk about His Word and argue, study, meditate and decide for ourselves.

 

[drbrumley]

As a human being, who came into existence? The son of God?

I thought the son of God is co-equal with God? God did not come into existence.

You cant kill God either.

Serious question, maybe you want to take a crack at it..

Did the Jews and Romans actually murder Jesus? Meaning is there anything they did that would have killed Jesus?

 

[Aimiel]

One of the things I liked best about the book, "The Shack," was that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all had nail print shaped scars.

 

[Right Divider]

There's a hierarchy in the trinity?

No, but there are roles and relationships.

They're co-equal but not co-equal?

The are all God.

I'm co-equal with my Father BUT He is greater than I?

That is correct. Once again, roles and relationships.

Why not skip the co-equal language and simply say that Jesus' Father is greater than Jesus?

Because both are true.

 

[Vail Lifted]

You cant kill God either.

Serious question, maybe you want to take a crack at it..

Did the Jews and Romans actually murder Jesus? Meaning is there anything they did that would have killed Jesus?

I think perhaps what you wanted to say was not that the son of God came into existence as a human being but rather the eternal son took on human flesh.

Human flesh came into existence with Adam. And anyone with human flesh is a human being. They cannot be anything else or they could not be called a human being. ideally a human being has a mind and a will and a personality to go along with his human flesh.

To be a human being, Jesus would have to have the characteristics that make up what is defined as a human being. If you take the brain out of a human being then you also take the ability to think, and the will, and the personality out. For Jesus to be defined as a human being he would have to have a brain. And that brain would have to develop to become the ideal human being. A personality would emerge and a will and the ability to learn.

If Jesus is God then Jesus would already have what God already has. And it would therefore be absurd to say Jesus was a human being from birth.

 

[drbrumley]

I think perhaps what you wanted to say was not that the son of God came into existence as a human being but rather the eternal son took on human flesh.

Human flesh came into existence with Adam. And anyone with human flesh is a human being. They cannot be anything else or they could not be called a human being. ideally a human being has a mind and a will and a personality to go along with his human flesh.

To be a human being, Jesus would have to have the characteristics that make up what is defined as a human being. If you take the brain out of a human being then you also take the ability to think, and the will, and the personality out. For Jesus to be defined as a human being he would have to have a brain. And that brain would have to develop to become the ideal human being. A personality would emerge and a will and the ability to learn.

If Jesus is God then Jesus would already have what God already has. And it would therefore be absurd to say Jesus was a human being from birth.

Much words, but you didn't answer the question.

You cant kill God either.

Serious question, maybe you want to take a crack at it..

Did the Jews and Romans actually murder Jesus? Meaning is there anything they did that would have killed Jesus?

 

[Vail Lifted]

Much words, but you didn't answer the question.

The rulers and leaders of the Jews wanted Jesus put to death. When Jesus confessed to Pilate that he was king of the Jews the Jews told Pilate that Caesar was their king. Jesus had a great following and Caesar would not be too happy if the Jews would have made themselves a new king so Pilate had no choice but to crucify Jesus or it probably would have been his head. They hung Jesus, the son of God, and son of man, on the cross until he died.

 

[Lon]

Let's be true to the words and their definitions.

To say God's son was born is to say that God's son came into existence. It's not me who wants to be false according to the definition of words.

Not quite true. These are assumptions as well and it is great if we look at our underlying assumptions. You and I certainly 'came into existence' but this is not true of the Lord Jesus Christ: He had no human father, for instance. "All bets are off" then, as far as what we'd 'assume' on point. We really need then, pedantic verses that tell us plainly what we can and cannot deduce/understand from His birth. Because of that, I believe most every point necessarily must be founded upon scriptures. I agree, btw, with all scriptures that Unitarians use, just not to the degree where I allow those to erase any other biblical truth given. I cannot, for instance, erase John 1:1 or John 20:18. They are both TOO clear for me to accept what to date, has amounted to hand-waving-less-than-academic explanations. The way John 1:1 is written, in all languages, leaves little doubt "both/and" must be understood. John 1:14,18, contextually makes it abundantly clear (as does all of John's writings). Because of said verses, I'm necessarily "Arian" AND "Trinian" thus Triune (Trinitarian).

I'm not arguing, just laying these scripture topics on the table as necessary for discussion (not even necessarily with me, these are the source materials). -Lon

 

[Vail Lifted]

One of the things I liked best about the book, "The Shack," was that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all had nail print shaped scars.

There are many orthodox Trinitarians who would shudder at the suggestion that God died. They understand that if God were to die then so would everything else.

 

[Jacob]

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?

At what time? Read the verse again. Is this while Jesus was living, when He was conceived, etc...?

 

[drbrumley]

The rulers and leaders of the Jews wanted Jesus put to death. When Jesus confessed to Pilate that he was king of the Jews the Jews told Pilate that Caesar was their king. Jesus had a great following and Caesar would not be too happy if the Jews would have made themselves a new king so Pilate had no choice but to crucify Jesus or it probably would have been his head. They hung Jesus, the son of God, and son of man, on the cross until he died.

Right on.....but I hope you're not misunderstanding what I am asking. Did the Jews and the Romans REALLY kill Jesus by their actions? The answer is yes they did in their hearts and minds but no in the way someone would crucify me and pierced my side.

Jesus said He laid down His own life, it was not taken from Him. There are serious theological implications in His words. The centurion could have stabbed Him a thousand times, until Jesus said it was time, He wasn't gonna die. Oh He was in agony, without a doubt. Lots and lots of pain. Probably more than any human being could sustain. But He gave up the ghost freely. It was not taken from Him. So with that said, Jesus is no ordinary human being. He was divine. They could not kill Him. He let them do the motions to think they did the deed, but they didn't. As the scriptures perfectly state, He gave Himself up for us. The perfect sacrifice. There is only one perfect being, and that is God. And Jesus is the 2nd person of the triune nature.

 

[Jacob]

When the WORD became FLESH, He sure did.

God and Man? I don't see what you are saying here.

 

[Jacob]

To say God's son was born is to say that God's son came into existence.

Unless God's Son already exists or already existed.

 

[Jacob]

God did not come into existence.

True.

 

[drbrumley]

Unless God's Son already exists or already existed.

Exactly....which is the case...

 

[Jacob]

I think perhaps what you wanted to say was not that the son of God came into existence as a human being but rather the eternal son took on human flesh.

Human flesh came into existence with Adam. And anyone with human flesh is a human being. They cannot be anything else or they could not be called a human being. ideally a human being has a mind and a will and a personality to go along with his human flesh.

To be a human being, Jesus would have to have the characteristics that make up what is defined as a human being. If you take the brain out of a human being then you also take the ability to think, and the will, and the personality out. For Jesus to be defined as a human being he would have to have a brain. And that brain would have to develop to become the ideal human being. A personality would emerge and a will and the ability to learn.

If Jesus is God then Jesus would already have what God already has. And it would therefore be absurd to say Jesus was a human being from birth.

The incarnation is a mystery.

If God became a Man.

 

[Jacob]

Exactly....which is the case...

Unless it is not. Therefore we have to start somewhere.

 

[Vail Lifted]

Not quite true. These are assumptions as well and it is great if we look at our underlying assumptions. You and I certainly 'came into existence' but this is not true of the Lord Jesus Christ: He had no human father, for instance. "All bets are off" then, as far as what we'd 'assume' on point. We really need then, pedantic verses that tell us plainly what we can and cannot deduce/understand from His birth. Because of that, I believe most every point necessarily must be founded upon scriptures. I agree, btw, with all scriptures that Unitarians use, just not to the degree where I allow those to erase any other biblical truth given. I cannot, for instance, erase John 1:1 or John 20:18. They are both TOO clear for me to accept what to date, has amounted to hand-waving-less-than-academic explanations. The way John 1:1 is written, in all languages, leaves little doubt "both/and" must be understood. John 1:14,18, contextually makes it abundantly clear (as does all of John's writings). Because of said verses, I'm necessarily "Arian" AND "Trinian" thus Triune (Trinitarian).

I'm not arguing, just laying these scripture topics on the table as necessary for discussion (not even necessarily with me, these are the source materials). -Lon

But Jesus DID have a human father and mother. He is the son of Abraham and David. He also has a human genealogy leading back to Adam. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and thus is called the son of God. But he is also declared the son of God when he was raised from the dead and is now without human mother or father. He is called the firstBORN from the dead because he went out of existence when he died and needed to be BORN or come into existence again by resurrection from the dead. The definition of BORN still hold s true. I don't need to change the meaning of words so to fit my ideas. I was told along time ago that to change the meaning of a word was to make a lie. Born then, still means born today. And it still refers to coming into existence.

 

[drbrumley]

Unless it is not. Therefore we have to start somewhere.

Start with the scripture....pretty simple.

 

[drbrumley]

The incarnation is a mystery.

If God became a Man.

Why is it a mystery....I guess you would be right since Science cannot explain it...but we know the who, what, when and where and that's all we need to know.