Welcome to your religion of one person. So you're the only correct person for 2000 years.anything that is separate and distinct is polytheism, be ye it nature or persons.
101G.
No, with you, that makes two.Welcome to your religion of one person. So you're the only correct person for 2000 years.![]()
(smile), maybe...... look at the evidence by scripture, and compare and see if what 101G believes pass the test, and without mystery. everything 101G states has pass the test, ...... according to scriptures.Welcome to your religion of one person. So you're the only correct person for 2000 years.![]()
101G disagree, because the Word in John 1:1 who is God is the one who "MADE ALL THINGS" in verse 3. but here is where your statement dies at. for the same one person in Jogn 1:1 who is God that MADE ALL THINGS, verse 3 is the same exact person in Isaiah 44:24 who "MADE ALL THINGS". if not then you have two creators, which is anti-bible.To understand the Trinity, you have to understand that Jesus was Pre-incarnate as the "Word".
Who is that one? John 1.. "and the WORD was God".
Notice the verse does not say the "Father" was God", and certainly John knew the distinction.
So, let me simplify, and see if you can get it.., if you are "Trinity stumped".
Who is the "WORD"< who isn't The "Father"..?
Its this One.
Genesis... "Let US... .make man.. in OUR Image.".
See that "our"?
That is Father God and "the Word made flesh" who "was God",, in John 1.
Now, notice........Pre-incarnate JESUS< is the WORD.. and God the Father.. SPOKE creation.. into Existence.
God SAID... "let there be".....and Pre-incarnate JESUS......is the WORD...
God spoke words of creation, and Jesus is that which He spoke that is the power of creation.
I'll prove it.
Just read John 1:10, and start with the KJV... and see who CREATED "the WORLD".. and then just reference back to what i just taught you., Reader.
where do we go to challenge an administrator's claim that That Bowlegged Cockroaches performing home construction is off topic?I hope you two realize That Bowlegged Cockroaches performing home construction is off topic.![]()
It's a long process. First you have to start with a psychological evaluation. After that depending on how serious a declined in comprehension Is discovered and how long of a treatment period will be necessary. Then we can discuss it.where do we go to challenge an administrator's claim that That Bowlegged Cockroaches performing home construction is off topic?
When Jesus was finally recognized as the Uncreated Divine Word of God Person who added human nature to Himself.
Hello Aeliana:Can you explain that in a little more detail? I'd love to hear it. I found this online and it goes into great detail.
![]()
In What Sense Did Jesus Empty Himself? (Kenosis, Condescension of Christ)
In the second chapter of the letter to the Philippians the Apostle Paul made the following statement about Christ. Have this attitude in yourselves which waswww.blueletterbible.org
Jesus Did Not Use His Relative Attributes
Jesus chose not to independently exercise of His relative attributes. This includes His ability to be all-knowing and all-powerful.-Don Stewart
If God thought that was important, He would have told us. Just accept the scriptural fact that He emptied Himself of some things (privileges or powers, we don't know exactly what), that He had before He came down to the earth.if God is one NATURE, which is Spirit. and three persons. 101G has One question, "How much of the ONE Spirit was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v. meaning, 1. to make empty. for the one person the Son who came in flesh?". so, how much 1/3 for the one person, or all of the Spirit was G2758 κενόω kenoo, or what?
101G.
he did tell us, scripture, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"If God thought that was important, He would have told us. Just accept the scriptural fact that He emptied Himself of some things (privileges or powers, we don't know exactly what), that He had before He came down to the earth.
I've not checked into the issues of kenosis. The problem I see with the rejection of kenosis is that the rejection seems to be based on definitions of godhood such as omniscience and omnipotence. God is God apart from definitions we have for godhoodness. I shared an example of a person controlling a robot. This is what I sharedHello Aeliana:
I just wanted you to know that this article from the Blue Letter Bible by the late Don Stewart teaches the heresy of "kenoticism." I was reluctant to classify it as "functional" or "ontological," I mostly just want to refer to it as the heresy of "evangelical kenotic Christology" because it is a sort of cafeteria heresy...the average evangelical "scholar" just picks the things he likes from both "functional" and "ontological" heresy not even attempting to try to make sense. The kenotic heresy Stewart teaches is basically ubiquitous among evangelicals these days and the amazing thing is that most evangelicals who teach this heresy are unaware of it and believe they are actually teaching the historic Christian faith. This heretical Christology is also completely incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity. If someone says something about "God's relative attributes" run...God has no such thing except in ontological kenotic (heretical) Christology. For example:
God does not have "relative" and "essential" attributes...God IS what God IS. And God IS always what God IS, otherwise God IS not God. God's attributes are not superpowers that he uses like Superman uses superhuman strength and x-ray vision. God IS what we call the divine attributes, this IS what God IS, this is how God exists, these are not powers that are "used." God IS all knowing (omniscient), all powerful (omnipotent), everywhere present (omnipresent). The first ontological kenotocist, Gottfried Thomasius, tried to put forth a distinction in what he called the "relative" and "essential" attributes of God saying that the "omni" attributes were relative to man and that God did not need them to be God. Thus he attempted to change the nature of God without changing the nature of God (no one was fooled...except apparently evangelicals in the 20th century). The KJV, NKJV, MKJV, all translate the word "kenoo" (from Phil. 2.7, this is where all the "kenosis" stuff comes from) as: that is, (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify: - make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.--(Strongs G2758) This is the correct translation in this passage.
Phil. 2:5 -8 does not say the Son "gave up" anything, quite the contrary, it does say he continued to be God but made Himself of no reputation by taking the form of a servant and beginning to exist as a human...and "being found in fashion as a man." I don't know if you are aware of this so I wanted to point it out to you and to anyone else who may have read the article.
TheLayman
he did tell us, scripture, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"
No Reputation? it's the Greek term,
G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.
1. to make empty.
2. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.
[from G2756]
KJV: make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain
Root(s): G2756
so, we have the scripture, now what about that question, "did the Son of God come from heaven, or came out of Mary?" your answer please.
101G.
ERROR this is why 101G teaches, and many others are students. Listen. 1. the Son of God came out of Mary. supportive scripture, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."I don't remember signing up to be in your class. You always assume that you are the teacher and we are your students. Try a little humility. The answer is BOTH.