Significance of the Virgin Birth

[101G]

That verse (nor similar ones) are good arguments to your belief system. God can be speaking anthropomorphically or he can be speaking of the soul as the personality -- of who he is in thinking, emotions, and interactions capacities.

is he?

That verse (nor similar ones) are good arguments to your belief system. God can be speaking anthropomorphically or he can be speaking of the soul as the personality -- of who he is in thinking, emotions, and interactions capacities.


Not sure what your point is here. There is no problem of God giving the Word, the divine person, as the spirit of the baby born as Jesus. It sounds like you are dividing things too far such that they do not make sense anymore.

no, just affirming scripture/

101G.

 

[mikesw]

GINOLJC, to all.
101G is going with scripture, do you deny the scriptures?
no, 101G believe that the Lord Jesus is God almighty, and the ONLY God almighty.

101G hope that is clear enough.

101G.

You are following the unitarian hyperliteralist approach. Just because a word like "soul" is used especially of humanity it does not mean that scripture only uses the word "soul" solely with humans. That type of error has to be guarded against.

Whoever taught you that God has a human-like soul is quite in error. It perhaps can be said that humans have a soul that God has modeled after his image. But that would not mean God is made like a human.

 

[mikesw]

A. no.
B. Jesus is God the Father in glorified flesh and bone, without blood.

101G.

Thanks for reminding us of the modalism that was properly rejected a long long time ago.

 

[mikesw]

is he?

It sounds like you have just used a verse as a proof text without considering the various options and basis for interpretation.

no, just affirming scripture/

101G.

However, it does not help to affirm scripture when you interpret scripture in a selective but inaccurate way. The apostolic oneness concept is rejected because it does not fit with the broad body of scripture. I'm not sure what makes you think that unusual apostolic oneness doctrine has any validity.

 

[Runningman]

That's what I have noted before. You are blind when it comes to those passages. You read as a hyperliteralist that expects the verse of Jesus saying words in an exact fashion "I am God" or someone writing "Jesus is God." Sorry that God did not write the scriptures just to keep unitarians from misunderstanding who Jesus is.

Your verses about "Jesus being God" are contradicted by other things in the Bible. If there is a contradiction or error in your presentation of Scripture, it's a red flag and means that you have not presented rightly divided, accurate, information. I understand you have assigned yourself the privilege to interpret the Bible liberally and figuratively where you need to, but you were never invited to do that, given instruction to do that, nor are you following the example of how others in the Bible interpreted Scripture. Did you know people in the Bible quoted the Old Testament, too? They didn't put a spin on it. They just quoted what it says and didn't try to force a particular school of thought onto it.

 

[mikesw]

Your verses about "Jesus being God" are contradicted by other things in the Bible. If there is a contradiction or error in your presentation of Scripture, it's a red flag and means that you have not presented rightly divided, accurate, information. I understand you have assigned yourself the privilege to interpret the Bible liberally and figuratively where you need to, but you were never invited to do that, given instruction to do that, nor are you following the example of how others in the Bible interpreted Scripture. Did you know people in the Bible quoted the Old Testament, too? They didn't put a spin on it. They just quoted what it says and didn't try to force a particular school of thought onto it.

You confuse contradiction with ambiguity. You deny the ambiguity so that you can avoid what you think is contradiction. That is the weak option to take.

 

[Runningman]

You confuse contradiction with ambiguity. You deny the ambiguity so that you can avoid what you think is contradiction. That is the weak option to take.

The Father is the "only" true God according to John 17:1-3. There is nothing ambiguous about this, yet you flatly reject it.

 

[mikesw]

The Father is the "only" true God according to John 17:1-3. There is nothing ambiguous about this, yet you flatly reject it.

Maybe it helps to remind you that no one has said that Jesus is a different god. I know that is hard for you to recognize in these discussions. But it seems to be the confusion that is typical of unitarians.

 

[Runningman]

Maybe it helps to remind you that no one has said that Jesus is a different god. I know that is hard for you to recognize in these discussions. But it seems to be the confusion that is typical of unitarians.

Jesus is a man with a God just like the others he was with.

Does the below verse sound like someone who is secretly God incarnate?

Luke 2
52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus is a man with a God just like the others he was with.

Does the below verse sound like someone who is secretly God incarnate?

Luke 2
52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

Christians also know Jesus recognizes God like other men do. But we have all the verses showing Jesus is God as the Son.

As far as Luke 2:52, I do not know how that denies the passages that say Jesus is God. I have not studied what the way incarnation would be done by God and the limitations on that. Maybe you have a source to explain those limitations. You have not shared those passages on what God can do and cannot do in incarnation.

 

[Runningman]

Christians also know Jesus recognizes God like other men do. But we have all the verses showing Jesus is God as the Son.

As far as Luke 2:52, I do not know how that denies the passages that say Jesus is God. I have not studied what the way incarnation would be done by God and the limitations on that. Maybe you have a source to explain those limitations. You have not shared those passages on what God can do and cannot do in incarnation.

The idea of God incarnating was never present in Jewish theology or culture in Biblical times. God is describes as transcendent and invisible in Jewish theology, but at times manifested in visible ways. Often uses intermediaries and messengers, but is never said to be incarnated anywhere in the Bible. There is also wisdom and words, which are personified as agents of creation, but neither of which are God Himself. Wisdom and words aren't God. God can also have an indwelling presence in people themselves, but God isn't a human at all as Scripture explicitly states in Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9.

I understand you feel strongly about your beliefs, but you are simply imagining something not stated in the Bible. You have pagan beliefs. The idea of incarnating didn't come about until gentiles understood and interpreted the gospel around their pagan worldview. It became the dominant belief in Western culture because it was reinforced with laws for centuries. Having a poor understanding of Scripture and the people from which it came from is ok as long as you are willing to learn something and grow. We don't need zealots, we need truth seekers, whatever the truth is.

 

[mikesw]

The idea of God incarnating was never present in Jewish theology or culture in Biblical times. God is describes as transcendent and invisible in Jewish theology, but at times manifested in visible ways. Often uses intermediaries and messengers, but is never said to be incarnated anywhere in the Bible. There is also wisdom and words, which are personified as agents of creation, but neither of which are God Himself. Wisdom and words aren't God. God can also have an indwelling presence in people themselves, but God isn't a human at all as Scripture explicitly states in Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9.

I understand you feel strongly about your beliefs, but you are simply imagining something not stated in the Bible. You have pagan beliefs. The idea of incarnating didn't come about until gentiles understood and interpreted the gospel around their pagan worldview. It became the dominant belief in Western culture because it was reinforced with laws for centuries. Having a poor understanding of Scripture and the people from which it came from is ok as long as you are willing to learn something and grow. We don't need zealots, we need truth seekers, whatever the truth is.

I'm just here to point out your contradictions, not to take your bad arguments into consideration.

 

[Runningman]

I'm just here to point out your contradictions, not to take your bad arguments into consideration.

You have only done an excellent job at providing more ways to publicly debunk trinitarianism. Keep them coming.

 

[mikesw]

You have only done an excellent job at providing more ways to publicly debunk trinitarianism. Keep them coming.

you mean debunking as in pointing out the passages that are explicit about the divinity of Christ -- like Thomas calling Jesus God and of John 1:18 that specifically states Jesus as God? It that is rejecting the divinity of Christ, that is a problem of your conception, not of the explict revelation of scripture.

 

[Runningman]

you mean debunking as in pointing out the passages that are explicit about the divinity of Christ -- like Thomas calling Jesus God and of John 1:18 that specifically states Jesus as God? It that is rejecting the divinity of Christ, that is a problem of your conception, not of the explict revelation of scripture.

John 1:18 says Jesus is begotten. God isn't begotten Mike.

 

[mikesw]

John 1:18 says Jesus is begotten. God isn't begotten Mike.

No. God is not a begotten Mike.

If you look at the proper meaning here, the word for "only" has been translated in the KJV as "only begotten." There is some truth in the translation of the KJV but only that "begotten" would be limited to where the Greek has "son." Note that it would be redundant to add "begotten" when talking about a son. When the Greek has God here, the word translates as "only." This shows that you do not do proper study of scripture. But you keep pushing your ideas.

 

[Runningman]

No. God is not a begotten Mike.

If you look at the proper meaning here, the word for "only" has been translated in the KJV as "only begotten." There is some truth in the translation of the KJV but only that "begotten" would be limited to where the Greek has "son." Note that it would be redundant to add "begotten" when talking about a son. When the Greek has God here, the word translates as "only." This shows that you do not do proper study of scripture. But you keep pushing your ideas.

Your argument seems to be that Jesus isn't the Son of God, but rather "Son" is just a meaningless title that has no bearing at all on his relationship to his Father and God. That's why you guys are always saying heretical things like "God the Son" because "Son of God" is genuinely a stumbling block for you all.

Also, you can't stay in John 1:18. The Bible repeatedly refers to Jesus as begotten offspring, not only in the human sense, but in the spiritual sense as well.

Here's a couple to send you packing your bags:

Hebrews 1:5
“For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You’?”

Hebrews 5:5
“So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.’”

 

[mikesw]

Your argument seems to be that Jesus isn't the Son of God, but rather "Son" is just a meaningless title that has no bearing at all on his relationship to his Father and God.

You continue to argue against a strawman or you you do not understand scripture and the Trinitarian explanation. Not sure why you could even think people are denying Jesus as the Son of God, unless you think they are unitarians.

That's why you guys are always saying heretical things like "God the Son" because "Son of God" is genuinely a stumbling block for you all.

Uh. You miss the basics. If A=B, then B=A. You miss that seed bears fruit after its own kind. So if Jesus is the Son of God, he is, for lack of a better term, blood-related. He does not lose his divinity that he gets from his Father in the incarnation.

Also, you can't stay in John 1:18. The Bible repeatedly refers to Jesus as begotten offspring, not only in the human sense, but in the spiritual sense as well.

Really bad answer by you again. You are conflating ideas. I already showed the problem of you abusing the word μονογενής. You just do not care about the actual text and translation except that it be forced into a unitarian error.

Here's a couple to send you packing your bags:

Hebrews 1:5
“For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You’?”

Uh. really? You are going to use that to deny his divinity when the divinity in the Godhead is evident in vv 3 and 8, among many other places. No one is denying the sonship of Christ, only the unitarian deception.

Hebrews 5:5
“So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.’”

Really? This is a passage about Jesus glorified as High Priest. Sure you like to reduce this to one meaning -- an declaration of God upon men -- as something done upon every man that becomes a High Priest, for example. However, we see then that you are just doing proof texting again.
Indeed it can be noted that this verse is merely about Jesus declared as High Priest in a common fashion. Therefore, it has no bearing pro or con of the divinity of Christ and thus exposes another failed interpretation of scripture by unitarians in order to convince people against scripture showing the divinity of Christ.

 

[Runningman]

You continue to argue against a strawman or you you do not understand scripture and the Trinitarian explanation. Not sure why you could even think people are denying Jesus as the Son of God, unless you think they are unitarians.

Because you denied Jesus is the Son of God. You are saying Jesus isn't begotten contrary to John 1:18 and various other verses saying he is not only begotten, but created.

Uh. You miss the basics. If A=B, then B=A. You miss that seed bears fruit after its own kind. So if Jesus is the Son of God, he is, for lack of a better term, blood-related. He does not lose his divinity that he gets from his Father in the incarnation.

You exhibit bad logic and present a non sequitur. There are no examples of anyone who is a Son of God in the Bible being God themselves. Do you suppose that all of the other Sons of God are fake sons of God? Scripture also says the other Sons of God are God's offspring. You have a consistency issue. The average person who isn't confused by you would see right through bad logic. The conclusion is you don't actually literally believe Jesus is God's Son because you think Jesus is eternal even though he was never called eternal one time in the Bible.

Really bad answer by you again. You are conflating ideas. I already showed the problem of you abusing the word μονογενής. You just do not care about the actual text and translation except that it be forced into a unitarian error.

Trinitarians regularly translate that as begotten. So you're saying that every Greek expert who disagrees with you is a Unitarian?

Uh. really? You are going to use that to deny his divinity when the divinity in the Godhead is evident in vv 3 and 8, among many other places. No one is denying the sonship of Christ, only the unitarian deception.

You can talk your way out of the hole you dug yourself by confessing that Jesus is the begotten son of God. It's up to you. I expect you to continue to deny the Son. He who denies the Son does not have the Father and is anti-Christ. Why not just quickly agree with the Bible if you allegedly believe in it?

Really? This is a passage about Jesus glorified as High Priest. Sure you like to reduce this to one meaning -- an declaration of God upon men -- as something done upon every man that becomes a High Priest, for example. However, we see then that you are just doing proof texting again.
Indeed it can be noted that this verse is merely about Jesus declared as High Priest in a common fashion. Therefore, it has no bearing pro or con of the divinity of Christ and thus exposes another failed interpretation of scripture by unitarians in order to convince people against scripture showing the divinity of Christ.

Hebrews 1:5, 5:5 refer to the Son in the offspring sense. The Son of God who descended from heaven is offspring. Means he isn't God.

 

[mikesw]

Because you denied Jesus is the Son of God. You are saying Jesus isn't begotten contrary to John 1:18 and various other verses saying he is not only begotten, but created.

I see you cannot interpret my writing let alone scriptures. You have not looked up the word in question so you can trample over the meaning of scripture.

You exhibit bad logic and present a non sequitur. There are no examples of anyone who is a Son of God in the Bible being God themselves. Do you suppose that all of the other Sons of God are fake sons of God? Scripture also says the other Sons of God are God's offspring. You have a consistency issue. The average person who isn't confused by you would see right through bad logic. The conclusion is you don't actually literally believe Jesus is God's Son because you think Jesus is eternal even though he was never called eternal one time in the Bible.

Wow. You love to quote your version of John 1:18 that says, per your favored translation, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God by claiming there are other sons of God. I believe I noted that for you earlier. THen I'm not sure how scripture says he preexists Abraham but is not eternal. I hope you are not trying to actually teach people things so convoluted as the unitarian belief systemm.

Trinitarians regularly translate that as begotten. So you're saying that every Greek expert who disagrees with you is a Unitarian?

I just note the abuse by the unitarians. We have various translations that use "only" and at least one that says "only begotten God" but it may not make much sense to mistranslate as "begotten" when speaking of God.

You can talk your way out of the hole you dug yourself by confessing that Jesus is the begotten son of God. It's up to you. I expect you to continue to deny the Son. He who denies the Son does not have the Father and is anti-Christ. Why not just quickly agree with the Bible if you allegedly believe in it?

I just do not believe you.

Hebrews 1:5, 5:5 refer to the Son in the offspring sense. The Son of God who descended from heaven is offspring. Means he isn't God.

You still conflate ideas. never learning reasonable exegetical concepts.