ECT Was the man Jesus God before He was Glorified . . .

[Clete]

Your point is no point. You don't know the Biblical sense, the elementary teaching of God's Word to presume upon it as you do. You need to do a long review of the basics before judging me or anyone else.

I have studied the bible and practically every variant of Christian doctrine since I was a teenager. That's 30+ years. Longer than you've been alive???

To know Him is to seek him; to love Him. You don't believe you need to do that.

Who said that I don't believe you need to do that? What are you even talking about?

How, by the way, would you propose to know him without the use of your mind?
What, in your view (i.e. your mind) does it mean to love?

Prediction: Your idea of love is causeless and arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

So much for your arrogance that I doubt will avail you even a "Professers" badge...

Professor's badge? Why would I want one of those? What are you even talking about?

Clete

 

[Clete]

For those of you reading this exchange, notice that my primary point on this thread has had to do with the principle of justice and that there has not been a single syllable of rebuttal of that point from anyone on this thread.

I point this out just so as to make sure that it does not get obscured by all the other relatively meaningless drivel that is being spouted by these morons who think that they can deny the deity of Christ and still be legitimate Christians.

 

[Cross Reference]

I have studied the bible and practically every variant of Christian doctrine since I was a teenager. That's 30+ years. Longer than you've been alive???
Clete

Unless you are older than my 80 yrs, your 30 yrs only tells me you need more work at overcoming your conceit. You are a novice. Who have been your mentors in your pursuit in understanding the scriptures? What institutions of 'learning' have you embraced through the years of your 'spiritual' journey?

 

[Clete]

Unless you are older than my 80 yrs, your 30 yrs only tells me you need more work at overcoming your conceit.

I was guessing at your age based on the level of your thinking ability.

You are a novice. Who have been your mentors in your pursuit in understanding the scriptures? What institutions of 'learning' have you embraced through the years of your 'spiritual' journey?

I'd expect someone from your generation to trust institutions.

I'm curious, however. Institutions of higher learning do not seem to be conceptually consistent with your rejection of your own ability to think.

By what standard would you judge one institution better than another?

By what mystic metric would you assess an institution's adherence to that standard?

What method of learning, other than the application of sound reason, do you endorse and which institutions utilize it and just how do they do it and how do you know it?

Why is another man's (presumably a professor of theology's) ability to think better than your own?

How would you know that what such a man was teaching you was true? By virtue of his professorship?


All questions that Cross Reference almost certainly will not answer and if he does won't be able to do so without contradicting his own doctrine.

Clete

 

[Cross Reference]

I was guessing at your age based on the level of your thinking ability.


I'd expect someone from your generation to trust institutions.

I'm curious, however. Institutions of higher learning do not seem to be conceptually consistent with your rejection of your own ability to think.

By what standard would you judge one institution better than another?

By what mystic metric would you assess an institution's adherence to that standard?

What method of learning, other than the application of sound reason, do you endorse and which institutions utilize it and just how do they do it and how do you know it?

Why is another man's (presumably a professor of theology's) ability to think better than your own?

How would you know that what such a man was teaching you was true? By virtue of his professorship?


All questions that Cross Reference almost certainly will not answer and if he does won't be able to do so without contradicting his own doctrine.

Clete

You have presumed much . . .without "reason", but certainly with knowledge only a rubic's cuber might be given to challenge.

This is my last to you except to say you have no idea what salvation and the new birth is all about.

Maybe buy some more books, you might get lucky.

 

[Clete]

Cross Reference is on my ignore list and so keeping up with this thread has been a touch on the annoying side because I don't get the notifications that I get from others who aren't a complete waste of my time. I participated in this last exchange only because I had some indication that there were some number of others who were reading it. That and I was sort of holding out some tiny whisper of hope that CR would accidentally respond to one of the arguments that I made against his insanely fake Christian doctrine and I wanted to be sure I didn't miss it. Obviously, there was no such response nor is it likely that there will ever be.

I don't know for certain but it could well be that CR doesn't think that his doctrine should ever be defended. He wouldn't be the first "Christian" that I've come across who thought that their doctrine was simply to be presented and then either accepted "by faith" or rejected and that any defense of it would somehow undermine the "faith". Such believers really do think that faith can only apply to that which does not make sense and at this point, I'd be somewhat surprised to find out that CR wasn't one such "believer".

Regardless, the point is that either God is just and Cross Reference is wrong or CR is right and God is unjust and arbitrary, in which case, there was never any need for Jesus to be born at all much less killed on a Roman cross and the question of His deity becomes a moot point as does the entire Christian religion!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[genuineoriginal]

Your question is ambiguous at best especially when all else fails if our understanding Jesus as being, "Uncaused LOVE" in Flesh and Blood is not considered. cf John 1:1 KJV. His eternal conception making His origin just that, eternal. Jesus Christ was, "I AM LOVE" Who entered Adam's race from the outside in the "fullness of time".

John 1:1 KJV uses the term "Word" as a translation of the Greek "Logos".
Logos, ( Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos
There is no translation that changes Logos into "Uncaused LOVE".
If you insist that the word means something it does not mean, then none of the rest of the chapter will make any sense.

we say Jesus is God both in His flesh and in His Spirit

I keep pointing out that the Bible never states that Jesus is God, but often states that Jesus is the son of God.

The "Son of Man" is coming again in "clouds of Glory". Mark 13:26 KJV. In that day Jesus will not be "Son of God" but, God in Glorified Human Flesh

The Bible does not say Jesus will be God in Glorified Human Flesh when He comes back.
But, assuming you are correct, how many of us will also be God in Glorified Human Flesh when Jesus returns?

1 John 3:2 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.​

I believe the phrase "God in Glorified Human Flesh" is inaccurate because the concept behind the phrase is not found in the Bible.
A better phrase to describe Jesus is "God glorified in human flesh".

 

[genuineoriginal]

If that is true, then God's spoken word IS God. God's Word IS God. We should, then, worship the scriptures, right?

Are you confusing the spoken word and the written word?

However, the confusion could be cleared up by understanding that

Logos is the Greek word for “word,” however the true definition goes beyond that, and can be most closely described as “the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed, Lat. oratio; and, the inward thought itself,
https://pathosethoslogos.com/​

John 1:1-16 is written in a poetic form using the concepts of logos that existed during the first century.
John 1:1 is a poetic way of saying that God bringing the creation into existence through His spoken word is God expressing His inward thoughts, and God's inward thoughts are the core ideas of what God Himself is.
John 1:14 is a poetic way of saying that God's inward thoughts were manifested in human form.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The first chapter of John is I think as clear on this as can be

The Bible flatly states that Jesus was God in the beginning and that He became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1)

Psalm 114:4 is also very clear, but you recognize it as being poetic and do not think that it really means that the mountains and hills are skipping like rams and lambs.

If it was not God who died for our sins, by what standard of justice would that death have paid the sin debt of more than one other person?

You are assuming that the death of Jesus was to pay for debts.

we know that God is just and that, therefore, it had to be God who died for our sins because the death of a mere man could only pay the debt of no more than one other man. And that is presuming that the man who died was perfectly innocent which we know (also from Scripture) it is impossible for a mere man to be. Thus, if you get the answer to your question wrong, you undermine, not only the plainly stated truth of the Bible but of justice and God's own righteousness itself and thereby the veracity of the whole of Christianity.

What could the death of Jesus on the cross mean if it does not mean that Jesus was paying for the debts of other people?
It has something to do with the reason God exalted Jesus:

Philippians 2:8-9 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:​

God had no reason to exalt Himself if He became obedient unto death on the cross.
The Bible clearly states that the obedience of Jesus is the reason God exalted Him.

The obedience of Jesus has nothing to do with paying for debts.
The obedience of Jesus was Jesus proving that He was worthy of the authority God gave Him to decide who was worthy of eternal life.

John 5:21-24 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

God never put on flesh. Try again.

Jesus Christ was an sinless independent human being who abandoned His life to God, His Father. Ring any bells?

Is God your Father?

This is a direct rejection of the gospel. You are not a Christian. That is to say that you are not a Christian in the biblical sense of the word.

Nowhere in the Bible does it declare that you must believe Jesus is God in order to be saved.
This is what the Bible states that we are to believe:

We must believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

John 20:31 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

We must believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

1 John 5:5 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

We must believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

1 John 5:10 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

 

[genuineoriginal]

They believe what they are taught and of that only what they want to accept. They reject anything they want for any reason they have to conjure up or for no reason at all. Faith, in their view, only applies to that which makes no sense.

That sounds a lot like the irrational belief about the Trinity that is taught by the Church.
Most Christians just accept whatever they were taught about the Trinity, even if it is not listed as a core belief in the Bible, and even when it makes no sense.

 

[genuineoriginal]

For those of you reading this exchange, notice that my primary point on this thread has had to do with the principle of justice and that there has not been a single syllable of rebuttal of that point from anyone on this thread.

Your principle of justice is not correct, is illogical, and is therefore irrelevant.

I point this out just so as to make sure that it does not get obscured by all the other relatively meaningless drivel that is being spouted by these morons who think that they can deny the deity of Christ and still be legitimate Christians.

Questioning the validity of the Trinity doctrine is not the same thing as denying the deity of Christ.

It is easy to believe in the deity of Jesus while disputing whether the Trinity is taught in the Bible as a core belief of Christianity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Unless you are older than my 80 yrs, your 30 yrs only tells me you need more work at overcoming your conceit. You are a novice. Who have been your mentors in your pursuit in understanding the scriptures? What institutions of 'learning' have you embraced through the years of your 'spiritual' journey?

1 Timothy 4:12 12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

 

[Clete]

Your principle of justice is not correct, is illogical, and is therefore irrelevant.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Clete]

That sounds a lot like the irrational belief about the Trinity that is taught by the Church.
Most Christians just accept whatever they were taught about the Trinity, even if it is not listed as a core belief in the Bible, and even when it makes no sense.

I happen to agree that that most people's idea of the Trinity is irrational. God is not singular and plural in the same sense.

The Bible does clearly state that Jesus is God and that He existed in the beginning with God the Father and there are passages that have all three persons of the Trinity spoken of separately and the very first verse of the bible refers directly to the Creator with a plural pronoun. All the while, there is no other doctrine more clearly taught in all the bible than that there is but one God. Thus we as Christians acknowledge that there is one single God but that there is a plurality within Him. The bible simply does not explain the details of how that works and it is several steps too far to accept, even tacitly, that the doctrine of the Trinity is an example of an openly self-contradictory teaching that is found in the bible. There's no question that there are Christians who teach such self-contradictory things but that doesn't mean the Bible teaches it. The Bible simply presents the singular God in three persons and God did not feel it necessary to explain beyond that.

There are Christian, like Cornelius Van Til for example, who teach that presupposing that unity and plurality are co-equally ultimate concepts in God somehow magically solves the centuries old philosophical issue surrounding unity vs plurality but it solves nothing to presuppose a contradiction. In fact, it's worse than not solving it! To presuppose a contradiction is to undermine your entire epistemological foundation. You cannot presuppose the truth of an irrational premise and hope to end up with a rational worldview.

Now, having said that, that'll be all I say about the Trinity. There is no point in debating a topic for which critical data has been intentionally left out of the Bible.

-----------------------

I'd be very interested in reading whatever it is you think you've got about why my "...principle of justice is not correct, is illogical, and is therefore irrelevant".

Just what do you think justice is and why do you think that?

What does it mean to say that God is just?

In what way can God not punish a man's sins and remain just?

Was justice satisfied by the death of Jesus, if so, how so?

In other words, instead of making bald assertions, make the argument!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Cross Reference]

It is quite clear that the anti-trin's don't recognize how it possible that off-times their lips do speak contrary to their heart and how the 'LIPS' of the 'HEART' of GOD never did and still don't..

 

[oatmeal]

It is quite clear that the anti-trin's don't recognize how it possible that off-times their lips do speak contrary to their heart and how the 'LIPS' of the 'HEART' of GOD never did and still don't..

It is quite clear that your post was the result of a hundred monkeys typing on a keyboard.

Do I have any proof of that?

Of course not.

Neither do you have any proof of your statement.

Everybody has opinions, but truth is not an opinion.

Show me the truth!

 

[Cross Reference]

It is quite clear that your post was the result of a hundred monkeys typing on a keyboard.

Do I have any proof of that?

Of course not.

Neither do you have any proof of your statement.

Everybody has opinions, but truth is not an opinion.

Show me the truth!

Get understanding of the "Word of God" that it is the verbal expression of the "Heart of God" much as the 'mouth" [lips] is the expression of yours. They are inseparable.

Still need help? Answer the question: "Who spoke the world into existence?" "Whose plan was it?"

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John1:1 (KJV)

 

[Cross Reference]

Faith

"Without faith it is impossible to please Him." Hebrews 11:6.

Faith in antagonism to common sense is fanaticism, and common sense in antagonism to faith is rationalism. The life of faith brings the two into a right relation. Common sense is not faith, and faith is not common sense; they stand in the relation of the natural and the spiritual; of impulse and inspiration. Nothing Jesus Christ ever said is common sense, it is revelation sense, and it reaches the shores where common sense fails. Faith must be tried before the reality of faith is actual. “We know that all things work together for good,” then no matter what happens, the alchemy of God’s providence transfigures the ideal faith into actual reality. Faith always works on the personal line, the whole purpose of God being to see that the ideal faith is made real in His children. For every detail of the commonsense life, there is a revelation fact of God whereby we can prove in practical experience what we believe God to be. Faith is a tremendously active principle which always puts Jesus Christ first—‘Lord, Thou hast said so and so’ (e.g., Matthew 6:33), ‘it looks mad, but I am going to venture on Thy word.’ To turn head faith into a personal possession is a fight always, not sometimes. God brings us into circumstances in order to educate our faith, because the nature of faith is to make its object real. Until we know Jesus, God is a mere abstraction, we cannot have faith in Him; but immediately we hear Jesus say—“He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,” we have something that is real, and faith is boundless. Faith is the whole man rightly related to God by the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Oswald Chambers

 

[oatmeal]

Romans 8:17

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8:30

Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Were we as men God before God glorified us?