Jesus denied being God

[Runningman]

Yes and it refers to the resurrection, But BTW the phrase/word appears before Acts 13.

Never does it refer however to Christ coming into existence from a nonexistent state

God begets sons in the resurrection. It's Scripture. Jesus had a beginning point according to Scripture... hence why he is never called eternal one time.

 

[Runningman]

Except as the Word he always existed and was uncreated

Which verse calls Jesus the Word?

 

[mikesw]

Which verse calls Jesus the Word?

Please do not pretend to be so ignorant. If you have an argument against John 1, you are really taking a minority view point and should defend why you deny Jesus is the Word. The responsibility is on you to make the argument. You already failed by abusing the text from Meyer's commentary. You have to try a different tactic.

 

[Runningman]

I'm not sure why you want to neglect the context of Psalm 2 and what the significance is for Jews that heard this. I hope this is only due to lack of exegetical skills, even when your error is pointed out. And then you try to connect it with 1 Cor 15 which does not help explain Acts 13.

I can understand that you are trying to figure out the text and you naturally try to fit the text to your view of scripture. However, you need to have some guidance from commentaries so you are not making so many mistakes. If you can make a good argument against the finding in a commentary, then try it out. But accept criticism when your argument is wrong.

The commentary you provided was embarrassingly wrong. I didn't want to go there, but here we are since you say so. For starters, it completely ignored the fact that Acts 13:33 says that Psalm 2:7 was fulfilled by Jesus being resurrected. I can understand why the commentary you provided would want to run away fast from it because it debunks the idea that Jesus played any part in his own resurrection and that Jesus and God aren't the same person. It also proves that Jesus wasn't always the Son of God.

Here's a Trinitarian who disagrees with you:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

"This day have I begotten thee - It is evident that Paul uses the expression here as implying that the Lord Jesus is called the Son of God because he raised him up from the dead, and that he means to imply that it was for this reason that he is so called. This interpretation of an inspired apostle fixes the meaning of this passage in the psalm, and proves that it is not there used with reference to the doctrine of eternal generation, or to his incarnation, but that he is called his Son because he was raised from the dead. And this interpretation accords with the scope of the psalm. In Acts 13:1-3 the psalmist records the combination of the rulers of the earth against the Messiah, and their efforts to cast off his reign. This was done, and the Messiah was rejected. All this pertains, not to his previous existence, but to the Messiah on the earth. In Acts 13:4-5, the psalmist shows that their efforts would not be successful; that God would laugh at their designs; that is, that their plans should not succeed."

 

[Runningman]

Yes and it refers to the resurrection, But BTW the phrase/word appears before Acts 13.

Never does it refer however to Christ coming into existence from a nonexistent state

So you don't believe in Jesus' resurrection he was procreated? Scripture says he is. I believe you have reached the point where the better argument for your theology is to deny Scripture, it seems.

 

[Runningman]

Please do not pretend to be so ignorant. If you have an argument against John 1, you are really taking a minority view point and should defend why you deny Jesus is the Word. The responsibility is on you to make the argument. You already failed by abusing the text from Meyer's commentary. You have to try a different tactic.

Not a good look for you to suggest I am being dishonest as it distracts from the conversation and makes it look like you don't have any Scripture to back up your beliefs. I am directly asking anyone on this board to show me where Jesus is called the Word in Scripture. Please show it.

 

[Runningman]

It does not fit his doctrine. Acts13 does nothing to show Jesus/the Word was a created being

John 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

I believe you're beginning to see that Trinitarianism is incompatible with Scripture. You're seeing a lot of different verses that you're having to argue against, change the meaning, deny, etc.

 

[mikesw]

Not a good look for you to suggest I am being dishonest as it distracts from the conversation and makes it look like you don't have any Scripture to back up your beliefs. I am directly asking anyone on this board to show me where Jesus is called the Word in Scripture. Please show it.

so now you are thinking you may be seen as dishonest for the approach you have taken? I figure your mind only functions on a hyper-literalism that fails to understand nuances of scripture. I'm not sure how to convey the meaning of scripture in the face of such an obstacle. You need to start trusting those who follow the concepts of scripture.

 

[TomL]

I believe you're beginning to see that Trinitarianism is incompatible with Scripture. You're seeing a lot of different verses that you're having to argue against, change the meaning, deny, etc.

You are hallucinating and as far from the truth as is conceivable

I think you baldly deny the evidence and do not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Runningman]

so now you are thinking you may be seen as dishonest for the approach you have taken?

No I shouldn't be seen as dishonest. You are suggesting I am because you said I was pretending and you're wrong. I want you or anyone else to show me the verse where it directly and explicitly identifies Jesus as the Word. You aren't stalling are you?

 

[Runningman]

You are hallucinating and as far from the truth as is conceivable

I think you baldly deny the evidence and do not have a leg to stand on.

I feel the exact same way about you. I believe I have had the upper hand in all of the debates so far.

 

[TomL]

So you don't believe in Jesus' resurrection he was procreated? Scripture says he is. I believe you have reached the point where the better argument for your theology is to deny Scripture, it seems.

I will repeat. The word is never applied to Jesus/the word going from a non existent state to an existent state

Now will you deal with what I have claimed?

 

[TomL]

Which verse calls Jesus the Word?

John chapter 1

 

[mikesw]

The commentary you provided was embarrassingly wrong. I didn't want to go there, but here we are since you say so. For starters, it completely ignored the fact that Acts 13:33 says that Psalm 2:7 was fulfilled by Jesus being resurrected. I can understand why the commentary you provided would want to run away fast from it because it debunks the idea that Jesus played any part in his own resurrection and that Jesus and God aren't the same person. It also proves that Jesus wasn't always the Son of God.

Here's a Trinitarian who disagrees with you:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

"This day have I begotten thee - It is evident that Paul uses the expression here as implying that the Lord Jesus is called the Son of God because he raised him up from the dead, and that he means to imply that it was for this reason that he is so called. This interpretation of an inspired apostle fixes the meaning of this passage in the psalm, and proves that it is not there used with reference to the doctrine of eternal generation, or to his incarnation, but that he is called his Son because he was raised from the dead. And this interpretation accords with the scope of the psalm. In Acts 13:1-3 the psalmist records the combination of the rulers of the earth against the Messiah, and their efforts to cast off his reign. This was done, and the Messiah was rejected. All this pertains, not to his previous existence, but to the Messiah on the earth. In Acts 13:4-5, the psalmist shows that their efforts would not be successful; that God would laugh at their designs; that is, that their plans should not succeed."

Barnes' analysis hardly makes sense. Jesus did not reign as Messiah on earth. We can note the suffering and attacks were while he was on earth which ultimately was due to Jesus as the Messiah notably upon his resurrection. We also can tell by the use of Ps 2 in Acts 13. Thus, Barnes' minority view does nothing to your advantage.

 

[TomL]

God begets sons in the resurrection. It's Scripture. Jesus had a beginning point according to Scripture... hence why he is never called eternal one time.

Sorry nowhere in scripture is Jesus stated to have a beginning point

He was there in the beginning creating all things and nothing was made without him

You twist the scriptures

 

[mikesw]

I feel the exact same way about you. I believe I have had the upper hand in all of the debates so far.

So you think your misuse of Meyer's commentary represents you having an upper hand int he debates? Interesting.

 

[TomL]

I feel the exact same way about you. I believe I have had the upper hand in all of the debates so far.

I think that is hilarious as you have been refuted multiple times

 

[mikesw]

No I shouldn't be seen as dishonest. You are suggesting I am because you said I was pretending and you're wrong. I want you or anyone else to show me the verse where it directly and explicitly identifies Jesus as the Word. You aren't stalling are you?

Like I said. If you cannot handle the nuances of scripture, seek those out who can. You are contributing nothing to the discussion

 

[TomL]

The commentary you provided was embarrassingly wrong. I didn't want to go there, but here we are since you say so. For starters, it completely ignored the fact that Acts 13:33 says that Psalm 2:7 was fulfilled by Jesus being resurrected. I can understand why the commentary you provided would want to run away fast from it because it debunks the idea that Jesus played any part in his own resurrection and that Jesus and God aren't the same person. It also proves that Jesus wasn't always the Son of God.

Here's a Trinitarian who disagrees with you:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

"This day have I begotten thee - It is evident that Paul uses the expression here as implying that the Lord Jesus is called the Son of God because he raised him up from the dead, and that he means to imply that it was for this reason that he is so called. This interpretation of an inspired apostle fixes the meaning of this passage in the psalm, and proves that it is not there used with reference to the doctrine of eternal generation, or to his incarnation, but that he is called his Son because he was raised from the dead. And this interpretation accords with the scope of the psalm. In Acts 13:1-3 the psalmist records the combination of the rulers of the earth against the Messiah, and their efforts to cast off his reign. This was done, and the Messiah was rejected. All this pertains, not to his previous existence, but to the Messiah on the earth. In Acts 13:4-5, the psalmist shows that their efforts would not be successful; that God would laugh at their designs; that is, that their plans should not succeed."

UM resurrection is not creation

You do not have a verse which speaks of the words/Christ creation

and you utterly failed to prove the word was impersonal

jy

 

[Runningman]

I will repeat. The word is never applied to Jesus/the word going from a non existent state to an existent state

Now will you deal with what I have claimed?

I don't follow what you are trying to say exactly because you added a slash. What are you trying to say by "Jesus/the word?"