Thomas... My Lord and my God

[FreeInChrist]

amazing grace said:

Is Romans 9:3 'according to the flesh' also act in contrast to Paul having prexisted as God?



I will clarify my point.
First, i should have said Romans 9:5.
The addition of "according to the flesh" would not be needed in the verse if Jesus were only human since the Jewish lineage appears clearly without adding that phrase -- so "according to the flesh" would be unnecessarily redundant.

The necessary reason for "according to the flesh" is that Paul then contrasts his flesh lineage with the greater mention of Jesus as God.

That makes perfect sense

 

[TomL]

This leap you make from the word "word" to God is in your mind. Then you take this jump of yours and turn it on me saying I made God neuter.

Not my mind

John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Maybe you should actually consider scripture.

Let's see

The Word was God

God is masculine

But You want to make a word ("word") which is masculine in modern lexicography a neuter word to be God

Thus you are indeed speaking of a neuter God

Maybe you should stop substituting your theology for exegesis.

 

[amazing grace]

amazing grace said:

Is Romans 9:3 'according to the flesh' also act in contrast to Paul having prexisted as God?

I will clarify my point.
First, i should have said Romans 9:5
The addition of "according to the flesh" would not be needed in the verse if Jesus were only human since the Jewish lineage appears clearly without adding that phrase -- so "according to the flesh" would be unnecessarily redundant.

The necessary reason for "according to the flesh" is that Paul then contrasts his flesh lineage with the greater mention of Jesus as God.

Let's see - Paul was a human being yet the phrase 'according to the flesh' was used in reference of him ......
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh...... showing his lineage as an Israelite.
And, also in the same sense, Jesus being a human being the phrase 'according to the flesh' was used in reference of him
.... To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. Who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. BOTH HUMAN BEINGS - BOTH ACCORDING TO THE FLESH belonged to the lineage of Israelite.

Why would it be unnecessarily redundant to say it of Jesus if he was human yet not redundant to say it of Paul since he is a human? I don't get your logic.

 

[civic]

Not my mind

John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Maybe you should actually consider scripture.

don't you know that the Word was God really means the word in not God lol.

who would of thunk it .............................

I mean don't you know when the bible says Jesus created everything it really means He created nothing.

When the Apostles called Jesus God it really meant Jesus is not God

When the Bible say on many occasions Jesus was worhipped it really means they did not worship Him.

Its like backwards masking the bible, topsy turvy theology, up is down , right is wrong, light is darkness, obedience means to sin, eternal means having a beginning, and the list goes on and on

its crazy how some can twist the bible into such a PRETZEL

 

[Peterlag]

Not my mind

John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Maybe you should actually consider scripture.

The word "Word" is the Greek word logos. Not Jesus.

 

[civic]

The word "Word" is the Greek word logos. Not Jesus.

Yet Jesus is called the Word (logos ) in Revelation and in Johns epistle.

I'm sure you can do better than this watson