Eternal Generation of the Son (Aseity)

[mikesw]

So what you are asserting is when Deut. 6:4 declares “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. - it doesn't mean the numeral ONE as in the LORD is only ONE being but that among all the gods, there are NO OTHER gods like the God of Israel and in that sense He is one, i.e. He is one in the sense that he outranks, he is superior to other 'gods'?
Whereas, I consider ONE to be the numeral ONE with accompanying singular verbs and singular personal pronouns - as in "you are the God, you ALONE"......"all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O LORD, are God alone.” [2 Kings 19:15,19]
'the LORD is one' and 'You LORD alone are God' leaves no room for any other persons 'within', 'alongside' the one true God.

If you are going to deny the Word was with God and that becoming flesh was alongside God, you are just proving the denials that I mentioned earlier.

The thing is I don't reject the essence of who Christ is ---- Jesus' fundamental nature and core quality is that of a human being, a man.

No one denies Jesus is human. Again you make up excuses.

I don't consider Jesus to be a 'mere' man but an extraordinary man created by the power of the Most High in the womb of Mary - 'the offspring of the woman' from Genesis 3. He was prophesied to be a prophet like Moses [Deut. 18] and Jesus refers to himself as a prophet --- And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. [Matt. 13:57,58; Mark 6:4]

Uh. Jesus can be God's Son, Yahweh among us, Prophet, and Messiah. He came to earth physically first as the Prophet to warn Jerusalem of its judgment. That hardly limits what else he had come for.

Exactly --- for God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God........I see no reference to 'God the Son' whereas you say that the Son is God Himself. Did God send his Son into the world via conception in the womb of Mary OR did God place Himself in the womb of Mary to be born in the flesh, to be born as a man? What do scriptures tell us?

You try to confuse the language again. We went over the definitions and how theos is used, but then you trample over that to conflate in confusion by accusing it this way "that the Son is God Himself." I think there is only one person on this forum who has a view like that. The problem is that you are redefining "God" to be only the Father but then is the Son. No one put that idea on the table except those who want to deny the Son.

Jesus did not confirm his deity - they didn't ask him is he was God - they asked him if he was the Christ (Messiah), the Son of God and he confirmed that identity.

Moi? take a logic class? I know what the Son of God implies and just like in John 3:16 - it does not imply one is GOD----it implies someone distinct and separate from God who is the Father of said Son.

You say you know logic and then you deny the logic. The two things are that he is the Son and the second is that he is the one and only Son. He is uniquely the Son from God.

It would be a great help if you would post scripture references for your statements. God was with us in and through his Son. The actions that Jesus did ---- So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, [John 10:24,25] “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— [Acts 2:22]
[God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (2 Cor. 5:19)]

I do not know if anything would help since unitarians just distort the testimony of scripture to the deity of Christ. You just quoted John 10:24,25 and Acts 2:22 that do not have any relevance to arguing your view.

Indeed there were questions as to who Christ was --- And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, “Save us, Lord; we are perishing.” And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?” Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?” [Matt. 8:24-27]
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." [Matt. 16:13-17 8:27-29] BUT these recorded questions were not whether Jesus was God or not......no one asserted that Jesus was God. Nor did they deny Christ --- even Arians did not deny the existence of Christ.

You really do miss the obvious point. NO ONE WAS EXPECTING THAT JESUS WOULD BE THE INCARNATED ONE. Maybe the exception is that some leaders discerned this point or, as in Matt 26:64-65, were confounded by the possibility of how God would appear as the Messiah. Maybe that elaboration helps but don't forget what we know from earlier in the discussion.

Yes, the concept of Triune beings was developed ahead of the councils ---- The Babylonian-Assyrian culture worshipped one God in three persons in the form of Ea---Damkina---Marduk and later Sin-Shamash-Ishtar.
The ancient Egyptians worshipped Ra---Amon---Ptah as a Triune deity. They also worshipped Osiris, Isis and Horus as a divine father, mother, and son Trinity.
Hinduism from ancient times has the supreme Trinity of Brahma---Shiva---Vishnu. etc., etc., etc. So it is easy to see how this crept into the concept of who Jesus Christ, the Son of God was.

You might as well be an atheist if you ascribe to those theories. I do not think all these religions came to Jerusalem or even to Christian areas to be absorbed into Christianity by the first and second centuries. You have fallen for foolish explanations, even desperate ones to deny the testimony of scripture of the deity of Christ.

And right it was not that easy - everyone turned from rejecting Christ to accepting him - After Theodosius became emperor in 379 AD he made it illegal to hold a non-Trinitarian belief - a political decision - that resulted in the Trinity doctrine coming to be the doctrine of the churches rather than true monotheism..... So people out of FEAR for their lives, whether they truly believed it or not had to confess belief in the Trinity. FORCE and FEAR compelled the acceptance of a Triune God.

Uh. You mean the roughly 290 bishops from all different backgrounds came in with a new doctrine and agreed upon it with that doctrine being a minor issue in the council. That is rather desperate assertion. Though, the politics can be an issue of improper action by the ruler.

I see no disadvantages for adhering to the truth of scripture.

Well. Hopefully you change your views so they follow in the future.

 

[amazing grace]

Yes Sir!

Can you clarify this comment? I think you messed up here.

You are probably having difficulty because you broke up the context of what I said in response to your first paragraph Post #328:

Actually you believe that Jesus was God incarnate, i.e. God clothed in flesh.
If that is not what you believe then that is not the Trinity - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
The Son, Jesus is NOT "from himself", 'by himself" or 'out of his own being".
Scripture plainly states that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High --- he originated from God.
The Son was granted to have life in himself by God his Father.

You said that you believed Jesus is the Son of the Almighty --- I do to.
Then I said that you actually believe that Jesus was God incarnate, i.e. God clothed in flesh and if that is not what you believe then that is not the Trinity, etc.

I beg to differ. You need to revaluate your understanding on the Essence of the Son and His Filiation to the Father. If you get these two wrong or conflate them then distort the Trinity. The Son is not created, he is Eternal. His personhood comes from the Father; begotten in eternity. But if you use corporeal analogy to understand the eternal generation of Son, you will make the Son a created being, a lesser creature or another god and if another god then you have 2 gods. I do not believe in 2 gods but One---Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is from the Father according to Sonship (distinction), but according to His essence he is Autotheos; of Himself! One Essence, One Will, One operation!​

Jesus' fundamental nature - the core quality of Jesus which determined his identity was that of a human being, a man.
God is Jesus' legitimate Father BUT this was no normal act of procreation between a mother and a father. There was no passing of bodily fluids containing DNA, genes, chromosomes etc. that would contribute to the genetic make-up of the child. Therefore, Jesus was created in the womb of Mary via the Holy spirit the power of the Most High - a miraculous conception.

begotten is the Greek word monogenes, a compound word derived from mono meaning single, only, alone and ginomai meaning 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being; 2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen [of events]; 3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage [of men appearing in public]; 4) to be made, finished [of miracles, to be performed, wrought]; 5) to become, to made. Jesus is the single, only one to come into existence, receive his being via the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High in the womb of Mary --- the Son of God.

Since I do not believe that Jesus is God, I cannot possibly have 2 gods. Jesus is from God his Father - Jesus originated from God in that he came into existence by the power of God via Mary.

Yes! But this is His Divine Identity, Eternal just like the Father who has "Life in Himself" so also the Son has "Life in Himself". This is not corporeal Life, but Eternal Life. He is Co-Eternal with the Father; Co-Equal with the Father they are One in Essence. The origin of the Son is from the Father, which why the relations are Father and Son.
Do you understand that He is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN form the Father? No one else has ever been the Only-Begotten from the Father. He's of the same essence of the Father, not made but eternal.​

Jesus was not co-eternal with God his Father because Jesus had a beginning through birth and had an end by death, although God raised him to eternal life. Jesus wasn't co-equal with God his Father either --- Jesus said God his Father was greater.
Read Matthew 1 that is Jesus' origin - The book of the generation (genesis - source, origin) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham, etc.

Yes, I do understand that Jesus is the only begotten Son from the Father. Explain what you mean by essence and how you believe Jesus to be of the 'same essence'.

Really? Read John 1 again.

Am I sure that God did not become flesh in the womb of Mary? YES, I am sure that Yahweh, the Almighty God had no need to enter the womb of a human being. I have read the prologue of John multiple times.

It's your prerogative believe what you want. I believe in the God-Man, who God promised he would send to rescue his people from their sins. Your lacking Covenant Theology. All of Scripture points to God doing in His Son by the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of His elect!​

It is your prerogative to believe in a god-man. I do not see where God promised to send a 'god-man' to rescue his people from their sins.
I understand completely that it was man who sinned against God and therefore, the penalty of that sin had to be rectified through a human being which is why God sent his Son, born of a woman. Why would God come to pay the price for humanity's sin against Him?

You read it, but still do not understand. People skim over Scripture without pondering upon what it teaches. For example, this passage you quote John 3:16. Most people if not a lot, focus mainly on the last part of the passage, and totally miss something very important---ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. Do you understand it? How you taken the time to understand it? Or are you influenced by other sources?​

I understand the prologue of John. I didn't just skim over it. As I have stated previously - I understand that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.....therefore, since he is the Son of God - he cannot be God because God is his Father.

So, that I understand you correctly, Son of God in the human sense not divine whatsoever, correct?

I'll wait to see how you reply to my question prior to this comment.

I have known people to interchange 'divine' with 'deity' so it would depend on what you mean by divine. I do not believe Jesus, the Son of God to be deity.

What does Messiah mean to you?

The Supremacy of Christ

(Hebrews 1:1-14)
​

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

BTW, Jesus has many titles which I will provide in the next post.​

Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed of God, the Lord's Christ.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman, the word "emptied" past tense come before "taking" the present participle, means if Jesus already "emptied,"
the "taking" decision cannot be done.
I always noticed your embraced of eisegesis Runningman just to defend pre-conceived beliefs.

Php 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Yes, what you are describing is a reguar human servant of God who made a decision to serve God. Jesus by no means had to follow God's plans. This is a powerful verse against the deity of Jesus.

Again, the problem is your always denial to the Almighty God the Father's words Runningman. (Heb 1:8,9)

Hebrews 1:8,9 is what I am quoting. Same thing applies to Solomon in Psalm 45:6,7.

No Jesus is not God Almighty (Revelation 1:8,9) nor even close to it. You misunderstand the context.

 

[amazing grace]

If you are going to deny the Word was with God and that becoming flesh was alongside God, you are just proving the denials that I mentioned earlier.

No one denies Jesus is human. Again you make up excuses.

Thanks for verifying how you understand 'one' at Deut. 6:4.
No excuses - none needed.

Uh. Jesus can be God's Son, Yahweh among us, Prophet, and Messiah. He came to earth physically first as the Prophet to warn Jerusalem of its judgment. That hardly limits what else he had come for.

You initially said: If Jesus were a mere man, he would just be the son of Mary... a prophet perhaps also a good teacher.....placing Jesus in the category of a prophet or a good teacher in reference to his being a 'mere' man then in the next breath admit that he can be a Prophet!!!! And I am the one who needs to take a logic class????

You try to confuse the language again. We went over the definitions and how theos is used, but then you trample over that to conflate in confusion by accusing it this way "that the Son is God Himself." I think there is only one person on this forum who has a view like that. The problem is that you are redefining "God" to be only the Father but then is the Son. No one put that idea on the table except those who want to deny the Son.

Do you or do you not believe Jesus to be God incarnate? God the Son?
YOUR sentence here: The problem is that you are redefining "God" to be only the Father but then is the Son. -- when have I redefined God to be the Son? It is not I who believes that the Son is God incarnate it is YOU.

You say you know logic and then you deny the logic. The two things are that he is the Son and the second is that he is the one and only Son. He is uniquely the Son from God.

I haven't denied that Jesus is the Son of God and have fully admitted that he is the one and only begotten Son of God.

I do not know if anything would help since unitarians just distort the testimony of scripture to the deity of Christ. You just quoted John 10:24,25 and Acts 2:22 that do not have any relevance to arguing your view.

Now I know why you don't posit scripture to back up what you are saying it's so you can just steadily accuse others about not having a clear argument. It is the Trinitarian who distorts the testimony of scripture which clearly depicts Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah not as Yahweh, the Almighty God.

You really do miss the obvious point. NO ONE WAS EXPECTING THAT JESUS WOULD BE THE INCARNATED ONE. Maybe the exception is that some leaders discerned this point or, as in Matt 26:64-65, were confounded by the possibility of how God would appear as the Messiah. Maybe that elaboration helps but don't forget what we know from earlier in the discussion.

All I need to know is Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Lord's Christ - someone completely distinct and separate from God his Father. There is no possibility that God would anoint himself as his own Messiah and scripture does not point to that.

You might as well be an atheist if you ascribe to those theories. I do not think all these religions came to Jerusalem or even to Christian areas to be absorbed into Christianity by the first and second centuries. You have fallen for foolish explanations, even desperate ones to deny the testimony of scripture of the deity of Christ.

Why wouldn't I think all these religions were around in the lifetime of Jesus and afterward during the formation of the early church?You don't think there were travelers from other areas coming around and hearing him speak or others speak of him as his fame spread throughout the region? You do understand don't you that the area was dominated by the Roman Empire which was steeped in polytheism? In the book of Acts which is about the early church people were added to the church daily and spread throughout the regions reaching Cornelius and his household (Acts 10-11), who were Gentiles.

Uh. You mean the roughly 290 bishops from all different backgrounds came in with a new doctrine and agreed upon it with that doctrine being a minor issue in the council. That is rather desperate assertion. Though, the politics can be an issue of improper action by the ruler.

Well. Hopefully you change your views so they follow in the future.

I see no reason to change my views -- Thanks.

 

[mikesw]

Thanks for verifying how you understand 'one' at Deut. 6:4.
No excuses - none needed.

That of course is your choice whether your provide excuses or not. That still is an attempt to deny greater knowledge of who God is.

You initially said: If Jesus were a mere man, he would just be the son of Mary... a prophet perhaps also a good teacher.....placing Jesus in the category of a prophet or a good teacher in reference to his being a 'mere' man then in the next breath admit that he can be a Prophet!!!! And I am the one who needs to take a logic class????

What on earth are you arguing here? You still need to sign up for that class. You have to show how God's Son cannot be incarnate speaking the words of prophecy. It seems like you keep on going on to nonsensical arguments. The equivalent is saying that a dad cannot be a father.

Do you or do you not believe Jesus to be God incarnate? God the Son?
YOUR sentence here: The problem is that you are redefining "God" to be only the Father but then is the Son. -- when have I redefined God to be the Son? It is not I who believes that the Son is God incarnate it is YOU.

Your statement was something about the Son being only as the Father. You state it as if God only exists as the Son via incarnation-- "you say that the Son is God Himself." That wording omits the distinction of the Father and Son, especially you saying "himself." that is not the real Christian theology. You try to confuse heresies into Christian theology in order to defend your unitarian belief system. I can see how you mess up when reading scripture as if that is how it would read in its proper light.

I haven't denied that Jesus is the Son of God and have fully admitted that he is the one and only begotten Son of God.

You deny he is God's Son. Not sure how many times to point that out for you.

Now I know why you don't posit scripture to back up what you are saying it's so you can just steadily accuse others about not having a clear argument. It is the Trinitarian who distorts the testimony of scripture which clearly depicts Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah not as Yahweh, the Almighty God.

John 1 is sufficient. Jesus's preexistence in his statements is sufficient. Phil 2:5-7 are sufficient. You just distort those. The quotes of the passages showing "Lord" as "Yahweh" are sufficient. You have to deny all those to get your belief system.

All I need to know is Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Lord's Christ - someone completely distinct and separate from God his Father. There is no possibility that God would anoint himself as his own Messiah and scripture does not point to that.

Uh. You are speaking like a modalist here. You have to keep track of the heresies and which is yours.

Why wouldn't I think all these religions were around in the lifetime of Jesus and afterward during the formation of the early church?You don't think there were travelers from other areas coming around and hearing him speak or others speak of him as his fame spread throughout the region? You do understand don't you that the area was dominated by the Roman Empire which was steeped in polytheism? In the book of Acts which is about the early church people were added to the church daily and spread throughout the regions reaching Cornelius and his household (Acts 10-11), who were Gentiles.

You really are bad with history. You make an atheist argument against God and double down on it. You might as well affirm your belief as being influenced by other religions. Or you intend to bring down all Christianity just to make yourself feel secure.

I see no reason to change my views -- Thanks.

That of course it the problem here.

If you are wanting to defend your belief system, you should at least have a sufficient argument to convince people away from the testimony of scripture about the deity of Christ. Otherwise, you are just holding to a novel, new, gnostic, private interpretation that you feels supersedes all that has been studied before you.

If your arguments made sense, people would have followed them by now.

 

[amazing grace]

That of course is your choice whether your provide excuses or not. That still is an attempt to deny greater knowledge of who God is.

What on earth are you arguing here? You still need to sign up for that class. You have to show how God's Son cannot be incarnate speaking the words of prophecy. It seems like you keep on going on to nonsensical arguments. The equivalent is saying that a dad cannot be a father.
Your statement was something about the Son being only as the Father. You state it as if God only exists as the Son via incarnation-- "you say that the Son is God Himself." That wording omits the distinction of the Father and Son, especially you saying "himself." that is not the real Christian theology. You try to confuse heresies into Christian theology in order to defend your unitarian belief system. I can see how you mess up when reading scripture as if that is how it would read in its proper light.

Oh, I see YOUR misunderstanding of what I said and meant:

<snip>
Exactly --- for God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God........I see no reference to 'God the Son' whereas you say that the Son is God Himself. Did God send his Son into the world via conception in the womb of Mary OR did God place Himself in the womb of Mary to be born in the flesh, to be born as a man? What do scriptures tell us?
<snip>

I never said the Son was the Father......what was said - "I see no reference to 'God the Son' whereas you say that the Son is God Himself".

You deny he is God's Son. Not sure how many times to point that out for you.

The thing is I don't deny that Jesus is God's Son, I deny that Jesus is God -- not sure how many times I have to point that out to you.

John 1 is sufficient. Jesus's preexistence in his statements is sufficient. Phil 2:5-7 are sufficient. You just distort those. The quotes of the passages showing "Lord" as "Yahweh" are sufficient. You have to deny all those to get your belief system.

The prologue of John is not the whole of scripture.
There's no preexistence in Philippians 2.

Uh. You are speaking like a modalist here. You have to keep track of the heresies and which is yours.

<snip>
All I need to know is Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Lord's Christ - someone completely distinct and separate from God his Father. There is no possibility that God would anoint himself as his own Messiah and scripture does not point to that. <snip>

Please elaborate.

You really are bad with history. You make an atheist argument against God and double down on it. You might as well affirm your belief as being influenced by other religions. Or you intend to bring down all Christianity just to make yourself feel secure.

Nope, not an atheist - I wouldn't even be here arguing if I had no belief in the existence of God.
My belief is influenced by Judaism.

That of course it the problem here.

If you are wanting to defend your belief system, you should at least have a sufficient argument to convince people away from the testimony of scripture about the deity of Christ. Otherwise, you are just holding to a novel, new, gnostic, private interpretation that you feels supersedes all that has been studied before you.

If your arguments made sense, people would have followed them by now.

I have sufficient evidence in scripture - a plethora of scripture against your prologue of John.
Not new but starting with Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc.

 

[mikesw]

Oh, I see YOUR misunderstanding of what I said and meant:

I never said the Son was the Father......what was said - "I see no reference to 'God the Son' whereas you say that the Son is God Himself".

Uh. you are playing with semantics so you do not have to acknowledge who Christ is. Also, you are the one who wrote as a modalist saying "the Son is God himself" even if you were trying to represent a view not your own.

The thing is I don't deny that Jesus is God's Son, I deny that Jesus is God -- not sure how many times I have to point that out to you.

I suppose you have to repeat it until your misconception become truth.

The prologue of John is not the whole of scripture.
There's no preexistence in Philippians 2.

Phil 2 does not directly state preexistence but it is hard to

Please elaborate.

Nope, not an atheist - I wouldn't even be here arguing if I had no belief in the existence of God.
My belief is influenced by Judaism.

Indeed. Judaism was the distortion of Jewish practices that developed after the return from Babylonian captivity

I have sufficient evidence in scripture - a plethora of scripture against your prologue of John.
Not new but starting with Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc.

If you have evidence, then you might try to share that instead of misconstrual of scriptures. You have yet to provide an argument against the testimony of scripture about the deity of Christ. Just try to form a seed of a convincing argument toward your belief system.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed of God, the Lord's Christ.

Can you expand on this in more detail for me?

 

[amazing grace]

Uh. you are playing with semantics so you do not have to acknowledge who Christ is. Also, you are the one who wrote as a modalist saying "the Son is God himself" even if you were trying to represent a view not your own.

I posted what I actually said from post #339. You know exactly what I meant - you are the one playing with semantics. In the context in which that was said it was in the view of someone who believes God is the Son, i.e. God the Son --- God gave his Son, if God is the Son then God gave himself that was the premise in which that was said. I am not even a Trinitarian why would I be a Modalist!? It doesn't matter because you are going to pretend that you don't understand and continue to falsify my meaning.

I suppose you have to repeat it until your misconception become truth.

I don't need to repeat it for it to become truth - scripture backs me up.

Phil 2 does not directly state preexistence but it is hard to

Correct. All Trinitarians have to back up their premise is inferences, hints, clues here and there.

Indeed. Judaism was the distortion of Jewish practices that developed after the return from Babylonian captivity

LOL.....The children of Israel practiced Judaism .... the practice of the Judaism began with Abraham.

Judaism, monotheistic religion developed among the ancient Hebrews. Judaism is characterized by a belief in one transcendent God who revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets and by a religious life in accordance with Scriptures and rabbinic traditions. [Brittanica]

Judaism is one of the world’s oldest religions, dating back nearly 4,000 years, and is considered to be the original Abrahamic faith (which include Islam and Christianity). As a monotheistic faith, followers of Judaism believe in one God who revealed himself through ancient prophets, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Solomon and others. [https://www.history.com/articles/judaism]

If you have evidence, then you might try to share that instead of misconstrual of scriptures. You have yet to provide an argument against the testimony of scripture about the deity of Christ. Just try to form a seed of a convincing argument toward your belief system.

Thanks but it is beyond me to help you understand the clear plain language of the majority of scripture.

 

[amazing grace]

Can you expand on this in more detail for me?

<snip>
Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed of God, the Lord's Christ.

expand upon what? It's rather simple and straightforward.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Do you agree that God is light?

Can man see God?

Is Christ according to what you believe created in time and space or is he eternal?

 

[amazing grace]

Do you agree that God is light?

Yes.

Can man see God?

No.

Is Christ according to what you believe created in time and space or is he eternal?

Jesus was created in the womb of Mary in time and space. He was not eternal.

All these things have been previously addressed.

 

[mikesw]

I posted what I actually said from post #339. You know exactly what I meant - you are the one playing with semantics. In the context in which that was said it was in the view of someone who believes God is the Son, i.e. God the Son --- God gave his Son, if God is the Son then God gave himself that was the premise in which that was said. I am not even a Trinitarian why would I be a Modalist!? It doesn't matter because you are going to pretend that you don't understand and continue to falsify my meaning.

I did not say you were a modalist. I said you expressed your remark in a modalist wording.

Also note that Modalism is one of the heresies that denies the Triune God. So your remark here does not make sense.

I don't need to repeat it for it to become truth - scripture backs me up.

Keep chanting that.

Correct. All Trinitarians have to back up their premise is inferences, hints, clues here and there.

That is called the testimony of scripture. Scripture is the writing that unitarians avoid when it speaks against their belief system.

LOL.....The children of Israel practiced Judaism .... the practice of the Judaism began with Abraham.

So Abraham was the first Jew?

Judaism, monotheistic religion developed among the ancient Hebrews. Judaism is characterized by a belief in one transcendent God who revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets and by a religious life in accordance with Scriptures and rabbinic traditions. [Brittanica]

Judaism is one of the world’s oldest religions, dating back nearly 4,000 years, and is considered to be the original Abrahamic faith (which include Islam and Christianity). As a monotheistic faith, followers of Judaism believe in one God who revealed himself through ancient prophets, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Solomon and others. [https://www.history.com/articles/judaism]

Take a look here:

The practices, ideas, and institutions that were elaborated during the Second Temple period formed and still form the basis of the religion known as Judaism.
ShayeCohen, FROm the Maccabees to the Mishnah , 8

You might notice that Judaism derives from Judah and would not be the designation for David's era. It is okay since not everyone has looked at that detail.

Thanks but it is beyond me to help you understand the clear plain language of the majority of scripture.

I know it is beyond you since you have not shared understanding of the clear plain language

 

[amazing grace]

I did not say you were a modalist. I said you expressed your remark in a modalist wording.

Also note that Modalism is one of the heresies that denies the Triune God. So your remark here does not make sense.

Keep chanting that.

That is called the testimony of scripture. Scripture is the writing that unitarians avoid when it speaks against their belief system.

The testimony of scripture should actually line up with what scripture clearly and plainly teaches.

So Abraham was the first Jew?

At its core, the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is an account of the Israelites’ relationship with God from their earliest history until the building of the Second Temple (c. 535 BCE). Abraham is hailed as the first Hebrew and the father of the Jewish people. (excerpt from https://unr.pressbooks.pub/worldreligions/chapter/history-2/)

Take a look here:
The practices, ideas, and institutions that were elaborated during the Second Temple period formed and still form the basis of the religion known as Judaism.
ShayeCohen, FROm the Maccabees to the Mishnah , 8
You might notice that Judaism derives from Judah and would not be the designation for David's era. It is okay since not everyone has looked at that detail.
I know it is beyond you since you have not shared understanding of the clear plain language

Judaism is the religion, philosophy and way of life of the Jewish people. Judaism is a monotheistic religion originating in the Hebrew Bible (also known as the Tanakh ) and explored in later texts, such as the Talmud. Judaism is considered by religious Jews to be the expression of the covenantal relationship God established with the Children of Israel.

Judaism claims a historical continuity spanning more than 3,000 years. Judaism has its roots as a structured religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Of the major world religions, Judaism is considered one of the oldest monotheistic religions. (source: excerpt from https://unr.pressbooks.pub/worldreligions/chapter/history-2/)

AI Overview:
The religon practiced among the children of Israel was the predecessor to modern Judaism, often called Ancient Israelite religion or Yahwism. While Judaism evolved over centuries, it is rooted in the covenantal relationship established by the ancient Hebrews with God, focusing on the worship of one God.
The religion evolved from early Yahwism—which existed alongside Canaanite polytheistic influences—into a stricter monotheism (the basis of modern Judaism) over centuries, particularly after the Babylonian exile. According to scripture, the religion started with Abraham and was cemented by Moses, focusing on the commandments (Torah).
The Children of Israel (Bnei Yisrael) were not initially called "Jews." The term "Jew" came into common usage later, particularly during the Second Temple period, to describe those returning to the land of Judah.

 

[Capbook]

Yes, what you are describing is a reguar human servant of God who made a decision to serve God. Jesus by no means had to follow God's plans. This is a powerful verse against the deity of Jesus.

Good Runningman, that now you don't insist the "emptying Jesus prerogative."
When your son follow your instructions, do that mean he is not in human nature Runningman?
As Jesus follows God's plan of salvation, it doesn't mean they are not one in the nature of God.
Because nothing in the whole Scriptures said, "Jesus is not God." Only from the mind of the Arians.

Hebrews 1:8,9 is what I am quoting. Same thing applies to Solomon in Psalm 45:6,7.

No Jesus is not God Almighty (Revelation 1:8,9) nor even close to it. You misunderstand the context.

Solomon never was called the "Mighty One" in the whole Bible Runningman.

But the Father called Jesus "God," that matter most, as it means Jesus' nature is God.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Yes.

No.

Jesus was created in the womb of Mary in time and space. He was not eternal.

All these things have been previously addressed.

Yes, thank you for obliging me. I do not want to misquote you. One more thing, are you saying Jesus was created in the womb, does this also the Son of God who created the heavens and the earth is not eternal but created in the womb?

 

[Ladodgers6]

Yes.​

Doesn't John the Baptist come to witness about the Light?

No.

I agree, but Jesus does see the Father.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.​

Jesus was created in the womb of Mary in time and space. He was not eternal.

All these things have been previously addressed.

How you account for Jesus saying before Abraham was I am. Or John 1; Col. 1; Heb. 1, where Jesus is the one creating the heavens and the earth? I don't believe that just because Jesus is born in the flesh he is created. He existed from ancient of times; meaning eternity. Which is why he is called the Son of God.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Being in the form of God does not mean being equal to God.

I beg to differ, not only is He in the form of God he is the exact imprint of His Father's nature; Autotheos. Again another reference to the Son's Divine Identity. He has "Life in Himself" & the "Exact nature of His Father essence"; meaning One Essence!

3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,​

 

[JesusFan]

So Jesus, who was God came down from heaven was submissive and obedient to God who remained in heaven?

Scripture says that Jesus came down from heaven, synonymous with came from God, came from the Father in this manner:
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” ..... And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

Jesus came into existence through conception and birth.

All persons of the trinity are mention in that passage

 

[JesusFan]

I beg to differ, not only is He in the form of God he is the exact imprint of His Father's nature; Autotheos. Again another reference to the Son's Divine Identity. He has "Life in Himself" & the "Exact nature of His Father essence"; meaning One Essence!

3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,​

The passage states to us Jesus was in equality with God