Runningman
Well-known member
Which verse.
Jesus denied being God
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
Go read what I wrote
and then deal with it
Continuity of being the word became flesh in the person of Jesus christ
Runningman
Well-known member
You asked me to get some guidance from commentaries. I even went to a Trinitarian for you. Barne's is a highly respected and popular commentator. He is agreeing with me on this point so now you're saying he doesn't make sense. I believe that Barne's, on this particular point, is brilliant. He is simply agreeing with what Paul said. Are you saying Barne's has bad exegesis too? Maybe instead of saying everyone else has bad exegesis, maybe it's you?
Runningman
Well-known member
Jesus has a beginning point according to Scripture and he was created.
Revelation 3
14“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.
Your turn. Jesus is never said to be eternal in Scripture.
Um Barne's does not state The person of the word/Jesus christ came into existence from non-existence
No he does not
The word beginning can mean the origin or the ruler
Revelation 3:14 (NASB 2020) — 14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Origin of the creation of God, says this:
Revelation 3:14 (NIV) — 14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.
Christ created all things and nothing was made which was made without him
John 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
And the word was there in the beginning of creation
John 1:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
creating all things
Colossians 1:16 (KJV 1900) — 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:
You are confusing what Paul says with what Barnes says about Acts 13. So you just appear confused. Not sure how to help you any further. It is true that commentators too can get confused about a passage or not even make a comment on a detail. However, Jesus, while being Messiah among the people, his actual kingship and priesthood did not start until his resurrection or even until AD70. Hence, it is not unusual for you to miss this too. Like I said, you seem unable to recognize nuances of scripture.
Last edited:
Runningman
Well-known member
Deal with what Barne's said rather than a fallacious argument from silence.
Runningman
Well-known member
Paul said that because Jesus was resurrected he is the Son of God. Brane's is agreeing with Paul and me. Brane's is not agreeing with you. This is the way the verse actually reads. I haven't really looked much more than Barne's yet, but his is probably the dominant scholarly opinion.
Runningman
Well-known member
I read it. Jesus is never directly called the word of God in Scripture. You shouldn't just make things up. If you wish to make an argument that Jesus is the word of God then please feel free to do so, but let's keep your arguments separate from what Scripture actually says. I might add, you are at the disadvantage now since your first claim failed to produce any explicit verses.
Now you are mixing topics together. Indeed Paul has said because Jesus is the Son of God. This is demonstrated by his resurrection. So you almost said something correctly.
Runningman
Well-known member
In Revelation 3:14, Jesus is referred to as the beginning of the creation of God. I didn't write it. Apostle John stated that Jesus not only has a beginning, but also implied that Jesus is in the same category or the creation of God which would mean Jesus is created and not God.
I would also add that most versions word Revelation 3:14 as such and arché is translated most commonly as beginning in regards to the temporal sense throughout the New Testament. I believe you are also at the disadvantage with your alternative, fringe, interpretation of Revelation 3:14.
HELPS Word-studies
746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").
Runningman
Well-known member
We are still on the same topic and it hasn't changed. Why do you not believe what it already explicitly says? The interpretation you're providing lacks Biblical precedent, but becoming a son of God in the resurrection is the Scriptural norm. It happened elsewhere too. Not to change the topic, but the below verses clarify that Jesus did indeed become the Son of God at his resurrection. Scripture says so in Acts 13:33 and Barne's agrees.
Luke 20
36In fact, they can no longer die, because they are like the angels. And since they are sons of the resurrection, they are sons of God.
Romans 8
29For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.
Colossians 1
18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence.
Runningman
Well-known member
@TomL don't evade and dodge his question. You need to address this directly. Where is Jesus called eternal in Scripture.
That's neat. You show that Christ in his divinity is also the start of new creation through his resurrection. We see that in Isa 9:6 where Jesus is called Mighty God and also Evelasting Father as he begins the new creatures consisting of Christians filled with God's Spirit.
He is firstborn by virtue of the resurrection. All Christians follow after that. We saw both Christ's divinity and his Fatherhood of all creation that came about by his resurrection. Christ Jesus is recognized as the Last Adam through whom all creation is made anew. Although he is God within man who is raised. We are also with God's Spirit and will be resurrected. But these nuances are beyond your detection. We can help you understand the details anyhow.
Since Christ existed before creation and all things were created for him, why do you think that would suddenly stop at some point? We know John 1 is beyond your comprehension. Just trust those who understand these nuances.
Runningman
Well-known member
Isaiah 9:6 obviously isn't about Jesus in the context. It says he will be "called" those things then in Scripture Jesus was never called those things. If you insist otherwise, which I am sure you will, then you must also accept that being called the Everlasting Father is a problem since Jesus isn't the Father.
Like I have noticed before. You lack the ability to follow nuance. You expect literal statements to confirm point for you to accept it. However, I think many people fail to recognize the Last Adam concept revealed in the designation of Everlasting Father. It's just that fail to miss every point found in this verse. And anyhow people do call Jesus these things every time they share this verse. The worse mistake that some have made is to assume that God the Father temporarily becomes God the Son instead of recognizing the Trinitarian concept.
Are you offering a different interpretation of this verse, a different time, a different person?
Last edited:
