From what position did Jesus Christ lower Himself?

[101G]

to all,
How many Lord God of the Holy Prophets do you have? well 101G has only one.... (smile)... B.A.M. .... BAM, BAM.

scripture don't lie, but men needs understanding of the scriptures.

101G.

 

[praise_yeshua]

to all,
How many Lord God of the Holy Prophets do you have? well 101G has only one.... (smile)... B.A.M. .... BAM, BAM.

scripture don't lie, but men needs understanding of the scriptures.

101G.

I have One God and He sure is BIG and complicated. Man has be discussing God from the beginning and still doesn't know it all. We do know that the type of arguments you're using are very rudimentary and insufficient to accurately define the substance of Divinity.

 

[APAK]

`thanks for the reply. the Lord God Is JESUS. listen and learn, Revelation 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:" one sent his angel to John with this revelation, right. now the angel who was sent tells us who sent him, the sent angel is speaking, Revelation 22:6 "And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done."

so the Lord God, the same Lord God in Isaiah sent him, the angel.... correct. well let's see who is the Lord God by name of the Holy PROPHETS. Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

so the Lord God is JESUS.... (Smile), and from you statement then JESUS is YHWH.

101G.

Look 101G, this back and forth can go on a for a very long time with you on your theory. And I've also seen this response from you to me before.

You superimpose or insert your theory to make scripture conform to it without knowing or are ignorant of the context, like many others on this site with their own theories. You are then in good company from this perspective. No one seems to like discussing the context beside anyone giving even a short commentary of their selected piece of scripture; and that's rare on these sites.

...And then I will come back and dismantle your view or understanding in this scripture and then you will come back with more of the same and I will again dismantle those.....and the beat goes on..

Now back again to Rev 22:16. Why are you so naïve in understanding this verse. You want to force upon me and others that Jesus always possessed angels, and therefore you attach or apply this simplistic wrong reasoning into the stated Isaiah verse and call/substitute the Lord God, for Jesus, his Son. Ridiculous and laughable.

Where, when and how do you think Jesus acquired these angels 101G? Hint: who created him, for where did the words of the prophet Isaiah receive his words.....maybe from the one Lord God - YHWH the only Creator?

You already quoted Rev 1:1 where YHWH sent HIS own angel. His Son never had any angels of his own until the transfer of responsibility and power took place for the new Kingdom. And then these may not be all the types and quantity of angels in existence under the Son's 'command.'

Why do you complicate and confuse scripture for yourself and your audience. Of course I do know why...

(DOUBLE SMILE)

 

[APAK]

So you deny the words of Peter?

1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

I wish you knew more about the teaching of the Hypostatic Union.

PY I do know of the (if you do not get offended) pagan and evil Hypostatic Union as one the major kludge devices installed to maintain the buoyancy of the Trinity model in its infancy.

I was raised Catholic if you are not surprised and I was never taught by nuns that Jesus was God either....startling aye...and now I'm puzzled by it all these years. I formally was persuaded to read scripture in a Catholic school at the age of 10....I do not do think they do this I suppose these days.

And for your first question PY, I of course, I totally agree with Peter and its intended meaning. Now you may have a different understanding of Peter's words. So be it. They are really easy to understand without inserting/injecting a religious theory into them.

 

[praise_yeshua]

PY I do know of the (if you do not get offended) pagan and evil Hypostatic Union as one the major kludge devices installed to maintain the buoyancy of the Trinity model in its infancy.

You will not offend me by call the teaching "pagan". It is just a descriptive distinction. The issue I have is with what you value more than Jesus Christ.

I was raised Catholic if you are not surprised and I was never taught by nuns that Jesus was God either....startling aye...and now I'm puzzled by it all these years. I formally was persuaded to read scripture in a Catholic school at the age of 10....I do not do think they do this I suppose these days.

"Nuns" are not theologians and never try to be. I'm not Catholic but I have friends who are. We have extensive debates on various subject. The Hypostatic Union is often a topic. Some Catholics no more about their religion than others.

And for your first question PY, I of course, I totally agree with Peter and its intended meaning. Now you may have a different understanding of Peter's words. So be it. They are really easy to understand without inserting/injecting a religious theory into them.

Do you not see the value of Jesus Christ in foreordination? That is choice. God's choice. Immaculate determination rooted in the qualities of goodness within Jesus Christ. In other words, Jesus Christ was more than capable. There is a reason "He" was chosen.

 

[Doug Brents]

Doug...pretty far out there. It says all that? not!

Isaiah is speaking the words from/of the LORD YHWH via his Spirit and not of Yahshua at all. And they to add in the capitalized Word for emphasis is the icing on the cake I gather? How could he be existing at that time, really? The folks would head for the hills and Isaiah would think evil had been bestowed upon him if your interpretation were true. The Son of God was not know by the common person and only a handful knew of his future existence back then. There was YHWH and his own effective and communicative Holy Spirit only, back then, besides angels and other humans of course.

Quite a fantastic interpretation you have going there.

Not in the least fantastic or bewildering.

John 1:1-3 - Jesus (the Word) was in the beginning (Gen 1:1) with God, and He was God. He created everything that was created, and nothing was created without Him (He could not have created Himself, thus He is not a created being). Jesus is one with YHWH (the Father). Yes, the Jews in Isaiah's day did not know of Yeshua (Jesus), but that does not mean that He was not there. Jesus, being one with the Father, was also speaking from the burning bush to Moses when He said, "I AM" is speaking to you. Jesus later said, "Before Abraham was, I AM!"

 

[Doug Brents]

see my post above.

101G.

What post?

 

[101G]

I have One God and He sure is BIG and complicated.

ERROR, Romans 1:19 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" you have NO excuse of NOT KNOWING, that your one God is big and complicated, that's an EXCUSE.

101G.

 

[101G]

Look 101G, this back and forth can go on a for a very long time with you on your theory.

there is no back and forth with 101G, maybe you. if the scriptures are not adding up for you then you might need to GO BACK and start over.

You superimpose or insert your theory to make scripture conform to it without knowing or are ignorant of the context, like many others on this site with their own theories.

personal Opinion

No one seems to like discussing the context beside anyone giving even a short commentary of their selected piece of scripture; and that's rare on these sites.

and?

..And then I will come back and dismantle your view or understanding in this scripture and then you will come back with more of the same and I will again dismantle those.....and the beat goes on..

you have never dismantle anything 101G ahs posted.

Now back again to Rev 22:16. Why are you so naïve in understanding this verse. You want to force upon me and others that Jesus always possessed angels, and therefore you attach or apply this simplistic wrong reasoning into the stated Isaiah verse and call/substitute the Lord God, for Jesus, his Son. Ridiculous and laughable.

prove the Lord Jesus and 101G wrong then?

Where, when and how do you think Jesus acquired these angels 101G? Hint: who created him, for where did the words of the prophet Isaiah receive his words.....maybe from the one Lord God - YHWH the only Creator?

this is the IGNORANCE 101G speak of, the Lord Jesus is not created. now prove 101G in ERROR, here's your big chance.

You already quoted Rev 1:1 where YHWH sent HIS own angel. His Son never had any angels of his own until the transfer of responsibility and power took place for the new Kingdom. And then these may not be all the types and quantity of angels in existence under the Son's 'command.'

another ERROR, there is ONLY ONE PERSON PRESENT in Revelation 1:1 .... (Smile).... Oh Dear.

Why do you complicate and confuse scripture for yourself and your audience. Of course I do know why...

they been confused for way too long, it's just call straightening thing out.

101G.

 

[101G]

@APAK,
since you mention Revelation 1:1 ..... you think it's two person there in verse 1... correct? if So, who is the two persons?
remember the Letter is from. Revelation 1:4 "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;" Revelation 1:5 "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"

now is this Letter from three persons?
A. him, which is, and which was, and which is to come the Father?

B. from the from the seven Spirits that are before his throne, the Holy Spirit?

C. from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness a no brainer, the Son?

APAK, is this assessment correct? if not please correct 101G to the right assessment.

will be LOOKING for your answer.

101G

 

[101G]

What post?

#75

101G.

 

[101G]

To all, at least most.
why people have a problem with God Holy Word? if God say something here, then he says the same thing over there. God word never contradict itself. when 101G pointed out that the Lord God is Jesus... of the Holy Prophets, why the excuse context? the Lord God Jesus said he sent the angel what more context do one need? how and why is that confusing?

when one is taught wrong, then comes the excuses.

example, if 101G say he who sits on the throne is the same person who stands in front of the throne, the Lamb in Revelation 4 and 5, what's so confusing about that? may one's mind is deceived into believing different? well the scriptures are not changing for 101G or anyone else.

so 101G will boldly make that statement. he who sits on the throne in Chapter 4 and 5 is he who stand before the throne, the Lamb is the same one person. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

test the spirit by the Spirit.

101G.

 

[APAK]

@APAK,
since you mention Revelation 1:1 ..... you think it's two person there in verse 1... correct? if So, who is the two persons?
remember the Letter is from. Revelation 1:4 "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;" Revelation 1:5 "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"

now is this Letter from three persons?
A. him, which is, and which was, and which is to come the Father?

B. from the from the seven Spirits that are before his throne, the Holy Spirit?

C. from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness a no brainer, the Son?

APAK, is this assessment correct? if not please correct 101G to the right assessment.

will be LOOKING for your answer.

101G

What letter? If you are speaking who gave to John the information about Jesus through angel then it is ultimately from one person, YHWH God Almighty.

Now in the brief introduction portion of this letter, grace and peace is being sent from both YHWH, through his Holy Spirit (YHWH speaks through his Spirit from his 'throne' to his creation including the angels), and his Son. YHWH begins and ends this brief introduction portion through his Spirit to the angel.

 

[Wrangler]

I know this is often part of the discussion but I believe it deserves it's "own" thread.....

If Unitarians believe Christ made Himself lower than the angels.... Meaning, He was obviously higher than the angels....

Then I believe it is fair to ask you to describe from position He "lowered" Himself....? Please be specfic.

The very reason you ask the question is because Scripture is not explicit. So, you want to rely on speculation.

 

[101G]

What letter? If you are speaking who gave to John the information about Jesus through angel then it is ultimately from one person, YHWH God Almighty.

Now in the brief introduction portion of this letter, grace and peace is being sent from both YHWH, through his Holy Spirit (YHWH speaks through his Spirit from his 'throne' to his creation including the angels), and his Son. YHWH begins and ends this brief introduction portion through his Spirit to the angel.

I want to get this straight, you're saying that Grace and Peace is sent by YHWH through his Holy Spirit. so, him "which is, and which was, and which is to come". is YHWH, the Father, is this correct? and "the seven Spirits which are before his throne", is the Holy Spirit correct?

and you said, "YHWH speaks through his Spirit from his 'throne", so, YHWH sits on the throne, the one whom you call Father, again I want to be clear. is this assessment correct? If not, please correct it.

101G

 

[APAK]

Why not identify it? You haven't said anything I don't understand. I can't say that for others participate. I know you know the subject better than most so go for it. Get into the detail. I'm with you in the details......

It's a matter of what pronoun is applicable and correct and not biased by translators of certain religious views. That is the issue and not to be taken lightly.

Many as you I presume, as one of many, say 'the Holy Spirit' is a masculine being and translate the pronouns that refer to it as “he” in spite of the fact that the noun is neuter and call for an “it,” not a “he” in Greek.

Similarly, even though the masculine noun calls for the masculine pronoun in the Greek language, it would still not be translated into English as the masculine pronoun, 'he,' unless it could be shown very clearly and without any doubt, from the context that the subject was actually a male; i.e., a man, a male animal, or God (who represents Himself as masculine in the Bible). So the question to answer when dealing with “the (W)word logos,” “the Comforter” and “the holy spirit” is not, 'What gender is the noun and associated pronoun in the Greek language?' Rather, we need to ask, 'Do those words refer to a masculine person that would require a 'he' in English, or do they refer to a 'thing' that would require the pronoun 'it'?' When 'holy spirit' is referring to the power of God in action or God’s gift, it is properly an 'it.' The same is true for the 'comforter.'

So the Spirit of Truth or of God or the Comforter each should be translated as an 'it.' Likewise logos should be also considered an 'it.'

And you know in the earliest English editions they were translated as 'it' not 'him' or 'he'....I hope you see the deliberate bias and how the Holy Spirit and the logos suddenly became masculine independent people.

 

[101G]

It's a matter of what pronoun is applicable and correct and not biased by translators of certain religious views. That is the issue and not to be taken lightly.

Many as you I presume, as one of many, say 'the Holy Spirit' is a masculine being and translate the pronouns that refer to it as “he” in spite of the fact that the noun is neuter and call for an “it,” not a “he” in Greek.

Similarly, even though the masculine noun calls for the masculine pronoun in the Greek language, it would still not be translated into English as the masculine pronoun, 'he,' unless it could be shown very clearly and without any doubt, from the context that the subject was actually a male; i.e., a man, a male animal, or God (who represents Himself as masculine in the Bible). So the question to answer when dealing with “the (W)word logos,” “the Comforter” and “the holy spirit” is not, 'What gender is the noun and associated pronoun in the Greek language?' Rather, we need to ask, 'Do those words refer to a masculine person that would require a 'he' in English, or do they refer to a 'thing' that would require the pronoun 'it'?' When 'holy spirit' is referring to the power of God in action or God’s gift, it is properly an 'it.' The same is true for the 'comforter.'

So the Spirit of Truth or of God or the Comforter each should be translated as an 'it.' Likewise logos should be also considered an 'it.'

And you know in the earliest English editions they were translated as 'it' not 'him' or 'he'....I hope you see the deliberate bias and how the Holy Spirit and the logos suddenly became masculine independent people.

One question is not the Lord Jesus that "Spirit?" yes or No.

101G.

 

[e v e]

Christ lowered himself from a deity in His gorgeous nature

to flesh
the foreign animal nature
on this earth.

 

[e v e]

It's a matter of what pronoun is applicable and correct and not biased by translators of certain religious views. That is the issue and not to be taken lightly.

Many as you I presume, as one of many, say 'the Holy Spirit' is a masculine being and translate the pronouns that refer to it as “he” in spite of the fact that the noun is neuter and call for an “it,” not a “he” in Greek.

Similarly, even though the masculine noun calls for the masculine pronoun in the Greek language, it would still not be translated into English as the masculine pronoun, 'he,' unless it could be shown very clearly and without any doubt, from the context that the subject was actually a male; i.e., a man, a male animal, or God (who represents Himself as masculine in the Bible). So the question to answer when dealing with “the (W)word logos,” “the Comforter” and “the holy spirit” is not, 'What gender is the noun and associated pronoun in the Greek language?' Rather, we need to ask, 'Do those words refer to a masculine person that would require a 'he' in English, or do they refer to a 'thing' that would require the pronoun 'it'?' When 'holy spirit' is referring to the power of God in action or God’s gift, it is properly an 'it.' The same is true for the 'comforter.'

So the Spirit of Truth or of God or the Comforter each should be translated as an 'it.' Likewise logos should be also considered an 'it.'

And you know in the earliest English editions they were translated as 'it' not 'him' or 'he'....I hope you see the deliberate bias and how the Holy Spirit and the logos suddenly became masculine independent people.

only the Satanic Realm has ITs

 

[e v e]

in hebrew His Spirit is always Feminine.

literally...