Thomas... My Lord and my God

Dan 7:13-14 says that the Son of Man will be given, "a kingdom,
So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed."

Jesus is the "Son of Man" in this passage, and because Jesus is God (John 1:1-3, 14), the Son of Man is God.
You're misunderstanding Daniel 7. Read the chapter, Jesus is not the Ancient of Days nor sits on His throne. Jesus is one who was "given" dominion, along with the other saints, to rule over the kingdom, and serve God. Read the whole chapter. It would be difficult to misunderstand, even intentionally.
 
Jesus is not God...

John 1:1
is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it's clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

A friend of mine put it this way... "The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ."

John 1:3 People often say I'm wrong when I post the following because they say I looked it up in an Interlinear or Concordance and it shows the word is a "him" and not an "it." Those reference books show how the Bible translates a word and not what the Greek actually means. The pronoun is an "it" when it refers to an inanimate noun like the "Word" because Greek has grammatical gender and the "Word" in John 1 is a thing so the Greek says it's an "it."

“Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”

Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.

"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you” (Proverbs 4:6).

Is the Wisdom in Proverbs 4:6 a distinct divine person?

The "Word" is not literally a person for the same reason that "Wisdom" is not literally a person. Both are to be taken metaphorically.

Jesus is the personification of the Word because He speaks the words of God. To listen to Jesus equals listening to the Word of God.

John 1:14 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.
I see. So you can't deal with the statements made, so you fall back on your misinterpretation of these verses which has already been debunked. I'm done with you.
 
You're misunderstanding Daniel 7. Read the chapter, Jesus is not the Ancient of Days nor sits on His throne. Jesus is one who was "given" dominion, along with the other saints, to rule over the kingdom, and serve God. Read the whole chapter. It would be difficult to misunderstand, even intentionally.
That is precisely what I said. John 1:1-3 & 14 says, Jesus is God. And Jesus is the one given the Kingdom, and His Kingdom will never end, or be taken away from Him.
 
You see I did deal with what you posted and I did so in great detail. So don't say I did not respond.
This time, you did. But all you post is a repetition of the nonsense you have been posting for months. You refuse to accept what Scripture says, instead doubling down on your blasphemy. But have it your way. As Red Baker said in another thread,

"I'm finish with you. You are not worth the Saint's time.

Matthew 15:13​

“But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”"
 
That is precisely what I said. John 1:1-3 & 14 says, Jesus is God. And Jesus is the one given the Kingdom, and His Kingdom will never end, or be taken away from Him.
God cannot be "given" something because He already has it all. Jesus was given authority because he isn't God. Pointed question, how can God be "given" authority? And did you read all of Daniel 7?

Acts 17
24The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands. 25Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.
 
God cannot be "given" something because He already has it all. Jesus was given authority because he isn't God.
Jesus was given the Kingdom because He had emptied Himself of His possessions, authority, glory, the independent use of His power, etc. when He left Heaven to become a man. This is the same reason He could grow in knowledge, wisdom, and stature.
 
This time, you did. But all you post is a repetition of the nonsense you have been posting for months. You refuse to accept what Scripture says, instead doubling down on your blasphemy. But have it your way. As Red Baker said in another thread,

"I'm finish with you. You are not worth the Saint's time.

Matthew 15:13​

“But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”"
Okay. It is true that we do not agree.
 
I'm only here to help if I can. I count them being nasty to me as a sign I'm correct on how I see the Scriptures. The majority has never been right at anytime in history on the subject of the Scriptures. When I was younger I used to say to myself if I'm following the larger group on a biblical subject then I will probably be following the wrong side. The fools use that against me. They say we follow what most of the world does and you follow the smaller group.
The Pharisees felt they were right and figured they were correct since Jesus kept confronting them.
It is wrong to have a view biased on the assumption the majority is wrong. I get the sentiment, but it is not the basis for claiming your view correct.
 
That verse disproves your assertion that this is just my opinion. Jesus emptied Himself when He left Heaven and became a man. He did not stop being God, but He did stop the independent use of His power, His authority, etc. All of this was given back later, but He did not have it before His resurrection.
It's a teaching to the church of Philippi to have the mind of Jesus. After that, Paul explained to have the mind of Jesus. Paul didn't each them to be a God Man.

Philippians 2
5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:
6Who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped,a
7but emptied Himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
 
It's a teaching to the church of Philippi to have the mind of Jesus. After that, Paul explained to have the mind of Jesus. Paul didn't each them to be a God Man.

Philippians 2
5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:
6Who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped,a
7but emptied Himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
Yes, we are to have the mind of Christ, meaning that we should be willing to give up all that is ours in order for everyone else to have something even greater. Jesus gave up all that He had, all that was by rights His, so that we could come to live with Him and Have some of His greatness for ourselves.

But that doesn't change the fact that He did, in fact, empty Himself of His glory, the independent use of His power, His knowledge, His authority, etc. when He came to Earth as a man. That is not my opinion. That is what Scripture tells us.
 
Yes, we are to have the mind of Christ, meaning that we should be willing to give up all that is ours in order for everyone else to have something even greater. Jesus gave up all that He had, all that was by rights His, so that we could come to live with Him and Have some of His greatness for ourselves.

But that doesn't change the fact that He did, in fact, empty Himself of His glory, the independent use of His power, His knowledge, His authority, etc. when He came to Earth as a man. That is not my opinion. That is what Scripture tells us.
The below part is not stated in Philippians 2, the rest was fine.

"He did, in fact, empty Himself of His glory, the independent use of His power, His knowledge, His authority, etc. when He came to Earth as a man."
 
Then what did He empty Himself of?
Well, Jesus was a very ambitious man who knew what he was capable of. Remember when he was tempted in the wilderness? The bread, all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, were at his fingertips ready for the taking and he wanted that otherwise it wasn't a temptation. What Jesus emptied himself of was his self-interests and desires in order to serve and obey God instead of himself.
 
Well, Jesus was a very ambitious man who knew what he was capable of. Remember when he was tempted in the wilderness? The bread, all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, were at his fingertips ready for the taking and he wanted that otherwise it wasn't a temptation. What Jesus emptied himself of was his self-interests and desires in order to serve and obey God instead of himself.
his self-interest and desires were to serve the Father. He gave all that up to serve the Father. Is that really what you want us to take from your view? I'm searching for a course on unitarian logic. I have not found one yet.
You would have to be saying that the form of God is of self-interest. That idea is hard to make sense of.
 
Well, Jesus was a very ambitious man who knew what he was capable of. Remember when he was tempted in the wilderness? The bread, all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, were at his fingertips ready for the taking and he wanted that otherwise it wasn't a temptation. What Jesus emptied himself of was his self-interests and desires in order to serve and obey God instead of himself.
Very well put when you say... "What Jesus emptied himself of was his self-interests and desires in order to serve and obey God instead of himself."

I could add that he was rightfully born with royal blood being the King of the Jews and he emptied himself of that and took on the roll of a servant.
 
Back
Top Bottom