Trinitarian Training

[amazing grace]

I would not hold to a doctrine of God coming in the flesh as his own Son. That is neglecting the multiple persons of God and the actual flesh born son. You are countering a doctrine that has no relationship to Trinitarianism.

I can see now that your rejection is not based on the Triune God but of some alternative heresies

Did God come in the flesh? according to you Yes . . . 'and in pre-existence God became flesh.'
Do you consider Jesus to be God?
If God is Jesus and Jesus is the Son of God - then God is his own Son. So you do hold to such a doctrine.

 

[mikesw]

Did God come in the flesh? according to you Yes . . . 'and in pre-existence God became flesh.'
Do you consider Jesus to be God?
If God is Jesus and Jesus is the Son of God - then God is his own Son. So you do hold to such a doctrine.

Like noted before. You get confused because you are not putting the details together correctly.
Should I remind you that "God" can be used to speak of the Word as God in the broad trinity sense and alternatively as specific to the Father? Then John 17:3 speaks of God addressed familiarly as the Father without rejecting the one called the Word also being of God in the triune sense.
So your source of confusion, although not fully unwarranted, is in your own head and is expressed in the type of question you ask.

I could suppose that Arius and others of his era ran into the same confusion. But, what seems to be noted of him is that he still recognized the divinity of Christ.

 

[amazing grace]

He sends the one that John first designates as the Word and becomes flesh as Jesus. He does this to save the world. (John 3:16-17). This is because of his love. That is an act to be appreciated.

Yes, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

I am greatly appreciative of my God for giving his Son and of my risen Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Lord's Messiah, who gave his life so that I could live.

 

[mikesw]

Yes, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

I am greatly appreciative of my God for giving his Son and of my risen Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Lord's Messiah, who gave his life so that I could live.

That's great. It helps to know that someone as mere human would have to be involved here to save the world. No human martyr would be able to accomplish that.

 

[amazing grace]

Like noted before. You get confused because you are not putting the details together correctly.
Should I remind you that "God" can be used to speak of the Word as God in the broad trinity sense and alternatively as specific to the Father? Then John 17:3 speaks of God addressed familiarly as the Father without rejecting the one called the Word also being of God in the triune sense.
So your source of confusion, although not fully unwarranted, is in your own head and is expressed in the type of question you ask.

I could suppose that Arius and others of his era ran into the same confusion. But, what seems to be noted of him is that he still recognized the divinity of Christ.

If you think I am so confused, which I am not, then lay it out plainly without your 'word' play. Pun intended!

I know who my heavenly Father, aka God is and I know who his Son, Jesus Christ is . . .
John 17:3 Jesus is clearly praying to his Father and he says . . . And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. Eternal life is to know the Father, the only true God and to know Jesus Christ whom God, the Father has sent.

When you say the 'divinity of Christ' do you actually mean the 'deity of Christ'?

AI Overview:

Arius believed that Jesus was a created being, subordinate to God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with him. He taught that Jesus was the first and greatest of God's creations, the Logos, who became incarnate in a human body. While Arius considered Jesus divine, he argued that Jesus' divinity was not the same as the Father's, but rather that the Father gave him his divine qualities.​

The Nicene Creed declared the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus. After the First Council of Nicaea in 325 the Logos and the second Person of the Trinity were being used interchangeably. Yep, that's exactly what you guys do!!!

 

[mikesw]

If you think I am so confused, which I am not, then lay it out plainly without your 'word' play. Pun intended!

I know who my heavenly Father, aka God is and I know who his Son, Jesus Christ is . . .
John 17:3 Jesus is clearly praying to his Father and he says . . . And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. Eternal life is to know the Father, the only true God and to know Jesus Christ whom God, the Father has sent.

When you say the 'divinity of Christ' do you actually mean the 'deity of Christ'?

AI Overview:

Arius believed that Jesus was a created being, subordinate to God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with him. He taught that Jesus was the first and greatest of God's creations, the Logos, who became incarnate in a human body. While Arius considered Jesus divine, he argued that Jesus' divinity was not the same as the Father's, but rather that the Father gave him his divine qualities.​

The Nicene Creed declared the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus. After the First Council of Nicaea in 325 the Logos and the second Person of the Trinity were being used interchangeably. Yep, that's exactly what you guys do!!!

you end up quoting the same verse over and over and over again as if that erased the rest of scripture. That does not make for a good argument. I explained how you have only argued against other heresies than your own without speaking against the true Triune God.

 

[amazing grace]

That's great. It helps to know that someone as mere human would have to be involved here to save the world. No human martyr would be able to accomplish that.

Yea, it's good to know that the unique human Son of God - Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. ---- was involved in our salvation.
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. --- The Messiah died for us - we are justified by his blood and saved from the wrath of God. He reconciled us through his death and we shall be saved by his life and WE REJOICE . . . .

 

[mikesw]

Yea, it's good to know that the unique human Son of God - Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. ---- was involved in our salvation.
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. --- The Messiah died for us - we are justified by his blood and saved from the wrath of God. He reconciled us through his death and we shall be saved by his life and WE REJOICE . . . .

At least you agree at a level of superficial wording. Hopefully we can help you understand the depth.

 

[amazing grace]

you end up quoting the same verse over and over and over again as if that erased the rest of scripture. That does not make for a good argument. I explained how you have only argued against other heresies than your own without speaking against the true Triune God.

Like noted before. You get confused because you are not putting the details together correctly.
Should I remind you that "God" can be used to speak of the Word as God in the broad trinity sense and alternatively as specific to the Father? Then John 17:3 speaks of God addressed familiarly as the Father without rejecting the one called the Word also being of God in the triune sense.
So your source of confusion, although not fully unwarranted, is in your own head and is expressed in the type of question you ask.

I could suppose that Arius and others of his era ran into the same confusion. But, what seems to be noted of him is that he still recognized the divinity of Christ.

You brought John 17:3 into the equation . . . not me.

 

[mikesw]

You brought John 17:3 into the equation . . . not me.

That was runningman who loves that verse while rejecting Joh 17:5

 

[Runningman]

That was runningman who loves that verse while rejecting Joh 17:5

Well, John 17:3 is a shoe-in for the exclusive deity of the Father. So we know Jesus didn't pre-exist as a human. Jesus must have pre-existed in a non-literal way in God's foresight and foreknowledge. Do you deny that too?

 

[FreeInChrist]

You are correct - If as you say = Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and Jesus is NOT the Father . . . you have two gods, i.e.
two separates.

What is the Godhead?