e v e
Active Member
actually esau added that in. there was no such temptations...
Trinitarian Training
- Thread starter praise_yeshua
- Start date
actually esau added that in. there was no such temptations...
You raise a question already answered, from the 100+ billion people who lived on Earth only one was sinless, Jesus, the blameless Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. That should be enough to make you rethink, using your spiritual insight, who Jesus was, not a mere man who chooses not to sin, but like God, He could not sin. And it is only therefore (His sinless life) God the Father could sacrifice His Son, notable a part of Himself.
As such it was in the OT, people who sinned sacrificed an innocent animal for forgiveness of sin, a pointer to the upcoming real sacrifice at Golgotha, no innocent animals who have to die for sin any longer. As such the Lord God refused the sacrifice of Isaac another pointer to the upcoming real sacrifice at Golgotha, no mere human (a boy) can take away the sins of the world. No, the real sacrifice had to be divine, both human and God. Only then a human could live a sinless life.
As you can see I don't even have to quote one Scripture passage, spiritual insight is convincing enough.
civic
Active Member
Amen He was Impeccable. Like Father, like Son.
Runningman
Active Member
What you have provided is your attempt at persuasion using an argument. Jesus is uniquely sinless, but Jesus believes people can stop sinning and he expects them to. But what do Jesus and everyone else have in common? They can all be tempted according to the Bible. God can't be tempted at all. Big difference.
1 John 3:6
No one who abides in Him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen Him or known Him.”
1 John 3:9
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.”
Matthew 5:48
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
1 Thessalonians 5:23
May the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
1 Peter 1:15-16
But as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.’”
Runningman
Active Member
My approach to Christianity is simple. I just like to say the kind of things Jesus did about God and leave it at that. If it worked for Jesus then I'll take it.
e v e
Active Member
since some of what you read never happened then, in fact, it does not work as an approach.
Runningman
Active Member
Do you think they have heavily edited the Bible or made up a bunch of the stuff that is in it?
e v e
Active Member
both, plus deleted, moved things.
e v e
Active Member
a few of the top recent posts are about this subject.
The Bible does not have to say "incarnated" as if to distinguish some other way of being body, flesh and blood. The flesh is the physical as distinct from the spiritual.
I cannot even venture to think what you mean by "flesh" here. Maybe you mean the text became animal skin or something weird like that. Most likely you try to give some unusual figurative meaning here instead of the more literal sense that John expresses. I guess in this case the hyperliteralism of the unitarian takes a drastic break.
we have been over this a thousand times. It was not God after incarnation through whom all things were created. Instead, it was before the incarnation. I think you are confused over the timeline.
While it is true the incarnation of the Word did not create all things, the essence of Jesus is the Word. It is the essence or divinity of Jesus that created all things. Maybe you will catch on to that this time.
Maybe you can clarify what you mean.
Runningman
Active Member
According to the Bible, humans are created. I hope you don't contest that. There is no such valid interpretation of John 1 that would lend anything to an incarnation. Such an idea is completely unprecedented in all of Scripture. Want to find out what your beliefs are made of? Find any evidence in the Bible that even comes close that God incarnated as a man. Good luck, by the way. No one has found this yet. The incarnation doctrine is an extremely flimsy one.
Runningman
Active Member
Your "God Man" philosophy contradicts the Bible describing Jesus as not God and limited. And you can't blame all of Jesus' limitations on being a human.
101G
Active Member
is this what the Lord Jesus do? Revelation 2:23 "And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."
Jer 17:10 said, "I the LORD" and Revelation 2:23 said, "I am he", I indicate the singular pronoun correct? so, is this not the same one Person?
101G.
Uh. You go again to define the metaphysical in a way that restricts what God can do and how incarnation could work. Once you get an authoritative text on these limitations of God, share those with us so you can try to prove your view.
I bet you are defining God merely by having the full powers and knowledge expressed freely. At the same time you restrict his power of incarnation to aid humanity. You have a weak sense of God.
Duh. We know the humanity of Jesus was created. You seem to make a big point of the obvious details. The Word becoming flesh shows that God joined into creation. John 1 is the account of God the Son incarnated. You basically read that point in John 1 and then deny it by saying it is not in scripture.
This incarnation does not have to happen in the Old Testament for God to do this at the right time in history, in the sending of the Messiah. It is like you have blinders on.
Here is a parable Jesus shared
Luke 20:9–16 (NKJV)
9Then He began to tell the people this parable: “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time.
10Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed.
11Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed.
12And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out.
13“Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him when they see him.’
14But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’
15So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them?
16He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.” And when they heard it they said, “Certainly not!”
This parable does not say the owner sent a stepson or an adopted son. The owner sent his son. When realizing the analogical identification of the owner as God. The Son is the only Son of God, not one of many. But unitarians do not discern analogies and metaphors but trod over them.
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
You have a weak version of a god who required to change and become a human, contrary to the Bible stating that God is not a human, is all powerful, and makes no mention of an incarnation in the first place. Isn't God powerful enough to not require an incarnation? Let the mental gymnastics proceed.
you neglect the parable of Luke 20:9ff to make your view. Obviously the sending of his son was personal. You depersonalize God. Instead, this was an act of love. The idea is that the appeal to the Jews was by God's personal act and interest and doing the most for them. It is not something to diminish that God sent his Son. We do not need to second guess why God worked it this way. We just know the pattern was demonstrated this way even back to Genesis.You have a weak version of a god who required to change and become a human, contrary to the Bible stating that God is not a human, is all powerful, and makes no mention of an incarnation in the first place. Isn't God powerful enough to not require an incarnation? Let the mental gymnastics proceed.
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
Ah, you think the Word is literally God. It's not. According to 1 John 1:1-3, the Word is a thing that was revealed by or manifested in Jesus. John 1:14, regarding the Word becoming flesh can either be understood as as Jesus being created or the Word making it's "tabernacle" or "tent" inside of Jesus. The Word of God is something Jesus has, not something Jesus is, and the Word is eternal life according to 1 John 1:1-3. John 1:1 can best be understood as personification.
So all your bowling pins just got knocked down. Without any explicit or clear statements about God incarnating you are simply providing an interpretation that is contradicted by the very chapter we are talking about. John 1:1-3 explains that all things were created by God. We can see in Genesis that God created using spoken words, not a surrogate god or additional person. God always creating alone in the Bible and being distinct from Jesus and the Word proves that the Word is not a co-creator or co-person with God. Case in point, you won't find anyone named "the Word" anywhere in the Old Testament saying or doing anything. And we still have John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 removing all doubt about who God is: the one and only true God is the Father.
Next fallacy.
