I totally agree with your statement.
Are we under any covenants?
- Thread starter Grace ambassador
- Start date
Thank you
Peterlag
Well-known member
I know very well what I'm talking about. You can't see any of it because you think Jesus is God. And he is not.
So you say
The bible says otherwise
John 1:1 (KJV 1900) — 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 20:28–29 (KJV 1900) — 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Titus 2:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
2 Peter 1:1 (KJV 1900) — 1 SIMON Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Are you confessing Christ as lord?
Peterlag
Well-known member
I often talk about the first two. Let's look a the last two. Both verses say God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. That's two. Not One. God and Jesus is two. Read it without your Catholic brain.
Titus 2:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
2 Peter 1:1 (KJV 1900) — 1 SIMON Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
dwight92070
Well-known member
Sorry no
Titus 2:13 (LEB) — 13 looking forward to the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
2 Peter 1:1 (LEB) — 1 Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith equal in value to ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
The KJV translators were unaware of the Granville sharp rule
The Granville Sharp Rule states, “When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun orparticiple” (Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 3).In simpler terms, the Granville Sharp Rule says that when two singular common nouns are used to describe a person, and those two nouns are joined by an additive conjunction, and the definite article precedes the first noun but not the second, then both nouns refer to the same person. This principle of semantics holds true in all languages.
Baker's exegetical commentary notes
One definite article in the Greek (τοῦ, tou) governs both “God” and “Savior,” which are connected with καί (kai, and). The identical grammatical construction appears elsewhere in the epistle where Jesus Christ is called both “Lord and Savior” (2Pe 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18). In a case such as this, “the article is (naturally) omitted with the second of two phrases in apposition connected by καί [kai]”
PS You have not addressed the first two here
Peterlag
Well-known member
Sure we can do more. Your first one was John 1:1...
Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."
If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it is clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.
Read the text
The word who was God became flesh in he person of Christ
Yes person
One who had glory with the father before the world was
John 17:5 (KJV 1900) — 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
One who created all things
Ephesians 3:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
one who existed in the form of God
Philippians 2:6–7 (KJV 1900) — 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
A plan is not in the form of God
A plan doers not think
A plan cannot make him self into something else
Your claim simply is contrary to the biblical facts
Peterlag
Well-known member
There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not. If the Jews had no trinity, and the Christians had no trinity until it was officially declared by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Then don’t you have to wonder where it came from? If it was formulated by the same Church that brought you Mary Mother of God, immortality of the soul, purgatory and hellfire... then don't you wonder just a little bit?
The issue here is Christ's living pre-existance
Are you ready to concede it or are you actually going to address the point without changing the subject?
Read the text
The word who was God became flesh in the person of Christ
Yes person
One who had glory with the father before the world was
John 17:5 (KJV 1900) — 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
One who created all things
Ephesians 3:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
one who existed in the form of God
Philippians 2:6–7 (KJV 1900) — 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
A plan is not in the form of God
A plan doers not think
A plan cannot make him self into something else
Your claim simply is contrary to the biblical facts
Peterlag
Well-known member
Concerning Philippians 2:6... Morphē is the root word of some other New Testament words and is also used in compound words. These add further support to the idea that morphē refers to an appearance or outward manifestation. The Bible speaks of evil men who have a “form” (morphosis) of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5). Their inner nature was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Christ was “transformed” (metamorphoomai) before the apostles (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). They did not see Christ get a new nature, rather they saw his outward form profoundly change. Similarly, we Christians are to be “transformed” (metamorphoomai) by renewing our minds to Scripture. We do not get a new nature as we renew our minds, because we are already “partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter. 1:4), but there will be a change in us that we, and others, can tangibly experience. Christians who transform from carnal Christians, with all the visible activities of the flesh that lifestyle entails, to being Christ-like Christians, change in such a way that other people can “see” the difference. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says the same thing when it says that Christians will be “changed” (metamorphoomai) into the image of Christ. That we will be changed into an “image” shows us that the change is something visible on the outside.
dwight92070
Well-known member
I know very well what I'm talking about. You can't see any of it because you think Jesus is God. And he is not.
You just prove the opposite - that you do not know what you are talking about.
You just prove the opposite - that you do not know what you are talking about.
Peterlag
Well-known member
dwight92070
Well-known member
Those are well-known and clever words. Sometimes they are true and sometimes they are not.
If they were always true, then Jesus lost His debate with the scribes and Pharisees, when He sharply insulted them in Matthew 23.
Jesus' words there show that sometimes certain people deserve an insult, by a person who is speaking the truth, because they are sinfully rejecting the truth.
The Socrates quote also shows us that we can't rely on his words vs. the words of scripture.
Once again, I'm amazed at the false quote you came up with, which is not even from the Bible - but then you don't believe Jesus is God, so I shouldn't be surprised. Believing that Jesus is not God, is also not from the Bible.
Not to mention that you've served up your share of insults yourself.
If they were always true, then Jesus lost His debate with the scribes and Pharisees, when He sharply insulted them in Matthew 23.
Jesus' words there show that sometimes certain people deserve an insult, by a person who is speaking the truth, because they are sinfully rejecting the truth.
The Socrates quote also shows us that we can't rely on his words vs. the words of scripture.
Once again, I'm amazed at the false quote you came up with, which is not even from the Bible - but then you don't believe Jesus is God, so I shouldn't be surprised. Believing that Jesus is not God, is also not from the Bible.
Not to mention that you've served up your share of insults yourself.
Last edited:
The meaning of the word translated form is not the issue
His existing at that time before he became a man even before the world was is
You have not addressed it
Runningman
Well-known member
Well said. Morphē is also used in the Septuagint in such a way as to deal with the outward appearance of something.
Except
1 the issue was Christ's pre-existence not the meaning of morphe. He ignored that much like you do
2 God does not have an outward physical appearance so there is no application for that meaning in Phil 2:6
3
Noun Usage
1. form (essence)† — the expression of something (such as a visual, spatial, or preternatural expression) that reflects or manifests fully and truly (and permanently) the essence of what something is. Related Topics: Nature; Form.
Php 2:6 ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
Php 2:7 ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου
2. form (manifestation)† — a particular mode in which something is existing. Related Topic: Form.
Mk 16:12 ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ πορευομένοις
Rick Brannan, ed., Lexham Research Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Lexham Research Lexicons; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).
Runningman
Well-known member
@Peterlag debunked your presentation of the word "form" in his thoughtful response above. You need to address that instead of just disregarding it like it never happened. Since form refers to the physical, outward, appearance then your premise regarding a pre-existence is moot unless you're saying Jesus pre-existed as a literal human, which I don't believe you are.
