dwight92070
Active Member
Jesus, who is God, also said: "For I have come down from heaven ..." John 6:38
Paul said, " ... God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."
So yes, God in the flesh came to earth.
Your Views on The Trinity
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
Paul said, " ... God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."
So yes, God in the flesh came to earth.
Right. And we have:
John 3:13 (ESV)
13No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
For Peterlag, he seams to means everyone has descended from heaven. Not sure how he gets that idea though.
Peterlag
Active Member
"For I have come down from heaven ..." John 6:38
Something was said to have come from God or come from heaven if God was its source. For example, James 1:17 says that every good gift is “from above” and “comes down” from God. What James means is clear. God is the Author and source of the good things in our lives. God works behind the scenes to provide what we need. The verse does not mean that the good things in our lives come directly down from heaven. The phrase “he who came down from heaven” in John 3:13 is to be understood in the same way we understand James’ words—that God is the source of Jesus Christ, which He was. Christ was God’s plan, and then God directly fathered Jesus.
There are also other verses that say Jesus was “sent from God,” a phrase that shows God as the ultimate source of what is sent. John the Baptist was a man “sent from God” (John 1:6), and it was he who said that Jesus “comes from above” and “comes from heaven” (John 3:31). When God wanted to tell the people that He would bless them if they gave their tithes, He told them that He would open the windows of “heaven” and pour out a blessing (Malachi 3:10). Of course, everyone understood the idiom being used, and no one believed that God would literally pour things out of heaven. They knew that the phrase meant that God was the origin of the blessings they received. Still another example is when Christ was speaking and said, “Where was the baptism of John from? From heaven or of human origin?” (Matthew 21:25). Of course, the way that John’s baptism would have been “from heaven” was if God was the source of the revelation. John did not get the idea on his own, it came “from heaven.” The verse makes the idiom clear: things could be “from heaven,” i.e., from God, or they could be “from men.” The idiom is the same when used of Jesus. Jesus is “from God,” “from heaven” or “from above” in the sense that God is his Father and thus his origin.
The idea of coming from God or being sent by God is also clarified by Jesus’ words in John 17. He said, “Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.” (John 17:18). We understand perfectly what Christ meant when he said, “I sent them into the world.” He meant that he commissioned us, or appointed us. The statement does not imply that we were in heaven with Christ and then incarnated into the flesh. Christ said, “As you sent me…I sent them.” So, in the same way that Christ sent us is how we should understand the phrase that God sent Christ.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Lacking a conclusion..... This seems to always hinder you at every level of your understanding.
So. ADD the context of the Eternal nature of Christ and what do you.... THEN... come up with?
dwight92070
Active Member
So you pick and choose when you interpret a statement symbolically and when you interpret a statement literally. That's typical for those who reject Jesus being God. It's a convenient way to reject the truth.
But you don't really want the truth. You just want to put a stumbling block in front of others who DO want the truth.
This is indeed the spirit of anti-Christ.
But you don't really want the truth. You just want to put a stumbling block in front of others who DO want the truth.
This is indeed the spirit of anti-Christ.
Peterlag
Active Member
Idioms are used often in the Bible even if you deny them or don't understand Eastern culture. Same with the food Manna that Israel found on the ground. It did not fall from the sky like snow. It was on the ground in the morning. The idiom was that it came from above or it came from heaven.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Can you at least explicitly state that the Eternal "context" of Christ is nothing more than an "idiom"?
I think this is coming from an early version of AI. The lack of variance of response does not reflect newer AI systems.
But for real theology, this video mentions some books and a few extra insights into the Triune God
Peterlag
Active Member
We are not talking about Christ or the external context. We are talking about (at least I am) what the term "came down from heaven" means. Jesus did not literally come down from heaven before he was born. It's an idiom to say he came from above which means God was the architect. Again, same with the food Manna that Israel found on the ground. It did not fall from the sky like snow. It was on the ground in the morning. The idiom was that it came from above or it came from heaven because God was its source.
How goofy of a post. Or maybe it helps a little. It makes no sense that some fleshly ball fell from the sky but indeed Peterlag speaks against that happening -- which is sort of okay. But the source of who he is began in heaven and manifested on earth in a way never done before. So the origination from heaven makes sense.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
So you would like to avoid the Eternal context of Christ? I'm asking you to continue your claims. I asking you to add the context of the Eternal nature of Christ to your conclusions.
Peterlag
Active Member
Nobody was conversing about Christ. We were discussing the term "from above" and "it came down from heaven."
Not sure how to cover that topic while omitting the person that this uniquely describes.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
So Christ didn't come from above? Jesus compared Himself to the real manna that brings Eternal life. I know you're trying to distance yourself from the implications.
Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Peterlag
Active Member
Nobody is comparing Jesus to Manna and I don't distance myself from anyone on here since I am strong in the knowledge of the Scriptures and most on here are not. And that's why I keep trying to help folks here to better understand the Scriptures. The term concerning Manna that "came down from heaven" and the term that Jesus came from heaven are idioms. The Manna food did not fall from the sky and Jesus did not pack a bag and leave heaven to come to the earth. So go ahead and continue to do what you do which is to attack, accuse, twist and blame just like the devil does.
dwight92070
Active Member
In John 9:3-4, Jesus admits that He will be doing a "work" on the Sabbath Day(see vs. 14), as He is about to give sight to a man who was born blind. After He healed him, some of the Pharisees said: "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath." Not only did He make clay to apply to the blind man's eyes, but He also healed him - He opened His eyes (Verse 14). Both of these were violations of the Sabbath Day, according to the Pharisees.
So, once again, Jesus DID NOT keep the Sabbath Day, as we previously learned in John 5:18. Those who say He did are mistaken. They rationalize their opinion by saying that if He broke even one law from the Law of Moses, then He sinned, and therefore He could not be our Savior. Balderdash! Jesus said He was "Lord of the Sabbath". He therefore could keep it or not keep it - it was totally up to Him. He was not sinning by breaking it, rather He was showing all people, that under the New Covenant, keeping the Sabbath was no longer a requirement. We also know from Paul's writings that keeping annual Jewish festivals, monthly new moons and weekly Sabbaths and laws about food and drink were all just a shadow of the coming New Testament and the coming of Jesus. Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore those laws too were no longer in effect.
So could Jesus have committed adultery or murder or lied? Of course not, those were universal, eternal, moral laws that will never change because they display God's character - which never changes. Was God ever unfaithful? Did He ever lie? Did He ever murder anyone? No, no, and no. He did kill people and even order the Israelites to kill people, but that was not murder, which is the unjustified taking of another person's life. When He had people or nations killed, it was His judgment on them and His prerogative to do so. He alone created life. He alone has the right to take life or to authorize men to do so, such as a justified war or capital punishment.
If Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath Day, He was also Lord of the entire Mosaic Law. It appears that John loves to especially focus in on Jesus' healings on the Sabbath Day, even though He healed every day. John is clearly telling us that the Sabbath Day law is OVER. In fact, we see from this and other verses that the entire Law of Moses was OVER.
But we learn and see it confirmed again in John 9, that:
1. Jesus came forth from God (vs. 33) and
2. He, as the Son of Man, and a worker of miracles that no other man could do - ONLY GOD (verse 32), is worthy of worship. (vs. 38) and
3. Jesus received worship and did not rebuke the man for worshiping Him.
Those who reject the Deity of Jesus are the Pharisees of today. They read about Jesus' miracles and do not come to the obvious conclusion that ONLY GOD could that.
As if that wasn't enough, these modern-day Pharisees read clearly in the Scripture that many people worshiped Jesus, and Jesus never once rebuked them or corrected them for doing so. ONLY GOD deserves worship.
"He who hates Me hates My Father also." John 15:23 I believe those who reject Jesus' Deity hate Jesus and His Father.
"If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well." John 15:24
Romans 1:30 speaks of "haters of God". We have located them. They are those who refuse to "honor the Son even as they honor the Father." John 5:23
So, once again, Jesus DID NOT keep the Sabbath Day, as we previously learned in John 5:18. Those who say He did are mistaken. They rationalize their opinion by saying that if He broke even one law from the Law of Moses, then He sinned, and therefore He could not be our Savior. Balderdash! Jesus said He was "Lord of the Sabbath". He therefore could keep it or not keep it - it was totally up to Him. He was not sinning by breaking it, rather He was showing all people, that under the New Covenant, keeping the Sabbath was no longer a requirement. We also know from Paul's writings that keeping annual Jewish festivals, monthly new moons and weekly Sabbaths and laws about food and drink were all just a shadow of the coming New Testament and the coming of Jesus. Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore those laws too were no longer in effect.
So could Jesus have committed adultery or murder or lied? Of course not, those were universal, eternal, moral laws that will never change because they display God's character - which never changes. Was God ever unfaithful? Did He ever lie? Did He ever murder anyone? No, no, and no. He did kill people and even order the Israelites to kill people, but that was not murder, which is the unjustified taking of another person's life. When He had people or nations killed, it was His judgment on them and His prerogative to do so. He alone created life. He alone has the right to take life or to authorize men to do so, such as a justified war or capital punishment.
If Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath Day, He was also Lord of the entire Mosaic Law. It appears that John loves to especially focus in on Jesus' healings on the Sabbath Day, even though He healed every day. John is clearly telling us that the Sabbath Day law is OVER. In fact, we see from this and other verses that the entire Law of Moses was OVER.
But we learn and see it confirmed again in John 9, that:
1. Jesus came forth from God (vs. 33) and
2. He, as the Son of Man, and a worker of miracles that no other man could do - ONLY GOD (verse 32), is worthy of worship. (vs. 38) and
3. Jesus received worship and did not rebuke the man for worshiping Him.
Those who reject the Deity of Jesus are the Pharisees of today. They read about Jesus' miracles and do not come to the obvious conclusion that ONLY GOD could that.
As if that wasn't enough, these modern-day Pharisees read clearly in the Scripture that many people worshiped Jesus, and Jesus never once rebuked them or corrected them for doing so. ONLY GOD deserves worship.
"He who hates Me hates My Father also." John 15:23 I believe those who reject Jesus' Deity hate Jesus and His Father.
"If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well." John 15:24
Romans 1:30 speaks of "haters of God". We have located them. They are those who refuse to "honor the Son even as they honor the Father." John 5:23
Peterlag
Active Member
This is what you guys do everyday. You dream up a hint here and a clue there and then you construct your "own God" which is the product of your own human reasoning process, speculations and assumptions. I will go through your list below to show how you do it.
Those who reject the Deity of Jesus are the Pharisees of today. They read about Jesus' miracles and do not come to the obvious conclusion that ONLY GOD could that.
Jesus was not the only man doing miracles in fact the Old Testament Prophets did some incredible stuff including raising people from the dead and one guy parted an ocean along with another guy who stopped the sun for a whole day. Were they all God's too?
As if that wasn't enough, these modern-day Pharisees read clearly in the Scripture that many people worshiped Jesus, and Jesus never once rebuked them or corrected them for doing so. ONLY GOD deserves worship.
There is no verse that says only God can receive worship in the New Testament. So again, you guys make stuff up with reasoning process, speculations and assumptions mostly by taking what was written in the Old Testament and applying it to the New Testament that is written on different principles concerning the new covenant and the birth of Jesus.
"He who hates Me hates My Father also." John 15:23 I believe those who reject Jesus' Deity hate Jesus and His Father.
John 15:23 does not say he who hates me as God.
"If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well." John 15:24
Jesus being the son of God did do works which no one else did. That does not make him God. It makes him the son of God.
Romans 1:30 speaks of "haters of God". We have located them. They are those who refuse to "honor the Son even as they honor the Father." John 5:23
John 5:23 does not mention anything about refusing to honor the God-Son. It says the son. So here's where your speculations and assumptions come in to play. You read "the son" but your assumptions turn it into God the son. It's not there in print. It's there only in your mind as you twist it.
Peterlag
Active Member
There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son...
Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.
Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.
This discussion is so great. I keep finding more and more examples of Christ Jesus in his divinity.
2 Pet 3:10,12
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare… as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.
It is like I have noted before namely that there are too many passages that the unitarians have to disregard when denying the divinity of Christ. Alternatively, they would have to show passage upon passage in some way to disregard the obvious meaning.
2 Pet 3:10,12
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare… as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.
It is like I have noted before namely that there are too many passages that the unitarians have to disregard when denying the divinity of Christ. Alternatively, they would have to show passage upon passage in some way to disregard the obvious meaning.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
I know you're not comparing Jesus to manna. If you did, then it would actually match exactly what Jesus said about Himself.
Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
So how does this reflect upon what you're doing to what Jesus said?
Is Jesus just an "idiom" to you?
Similar threads
