Virgin birth of Jesus and its acknowledgement

[redleghunter]

Yes, I have based on what is revealed in Gospel books and writings of chosen apostles who complemented His preaching.

What is your conclusion?

Is Jesus Christ truly God and truly man?

 

[redleghunter]

He is the Son of God.

Good start.

 

[Righttruth]

Would you go so far as to say He is God in the Flesh?

An incarnation of God.

 

[Righttruth]

What is your conclusion?

Is Jesus Christ truly God and truly man?

For sure He was truly Man. God the Father cannot be at the same time be the Son.

 

[Righttruth]

Would you go so far as to say He is God in the Flesh?

Incarnation, yes

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not without the help of the Holy Spirit

What would be your understanding of "His Grace" since obviously it is not in the same boat with "help of the Holy Spirit"?

 

[redleghunter]

For sure He was truly Man. God the Father cannot be at the same time be the Son.

Is your position Oneness?

Oneness theology denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person who was "manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration."1 Another way of looking at it is that God revealed himself as Father in the Old Testament, as the Son in Jesus during Christ’s ministry on earth, and now as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.

 

[MarysSon]

For sure He was truly Man. God the Father cannot be at the same time be the Son.

And that's not a Trinitarian belief.
Trinitarianism holds that:
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
a. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
b. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
c. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.
ALL 3 Persons are ONE God.

If you believe God is something different - then you adhere to one of many heresies.
Virtually every heresy is based on a misconception of the nature of God.

 

[Philip_B]

An incarnation of God.

The use of the indefinite article causes me a level of concern here.

 

[Righttruth]

What would be your understanding of "His Grace" since obviously it is not in the same boat with "help of the Holy Spirit"?

His grace keeps the Holy Spirit in our heart. Our yielding to the Holy Spirit leads to the truth. The Holy Spirit will not help an unyielding soul.

 

[Righttruth]

Is your position Oneness?

Oneness theology denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person who was "manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration."1 Another way of looking at it is that God revealed himself as Father in the Old Testament, as the Son in Jesus during Christ’s ministry on earth, and now as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.

I don't even like to touch the Oneness doctrine with a pole!

 

[Righttruth]

And that's not a Trinitarian belief.
Trinitarianism holds that:
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
a. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
b. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
c. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.
ALL 3 Persons are ONE God.

If you believe God is something different - then you adhere to one of many heresies.
Virtually every heresy is based on a misconception of the nature of God.

Bible clearly reveals that Jesus is the Son of God. Where do you find the verse that says that Son is God? I am not after 'isms', but after truth.

 

[Righttruth]

The use of the indefinite article causes me a level of concern here.

I have changed that to a manifestation of God already.

 

[Philip_B]

I have changed that to a manifestation of God already.

Those words might describe the burning fiery bush and the Theophany of Moses, yet when it come to the nature of Jesus Christ I am concerned at what you are not saying, and leaving the gate open for at least a dozen heresies to drive right on through.

Who is Jesus? What say you?

 

[Righttruth]

Those words might describe the burning fiery bush and the Theophany of Moses, yet when it come to the nature of Jesus Christ I am concerned at what you are not saying, and leaving the gate open for at least a dozen heresies to drive right on through.

Who is Jesus? What say you?

The Son of God.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

His grace keeps the Holy Spirit in our heart. Our yielding to the Holy Spirit leads to the truth. The Holy Spirit will not help an unyielding soul.

But this response does not jive with your or my prior statements.
A post was made implying blindness (in your words now apparently - because of an "unyielding soul") if there was a lack of understanding in the expression of the Holy Spirit being an "incarnation" of God. My reply earlier to your use of that expression and our "unyielding soul" in not accepting it was essentially that we are more blind if we attempt to use words we either do not understand or use incorrectly (a Spirit cannot be an "incarnation" because that word invokes having flesh).

In between all that you corrected yourself replying to another poster and said the word should have been "manifestation" not "incarnation". So am a little lost now, but it would appear you are using language that suggests something like a modalist or Oneness concept as another poster mentioned (but you then denied wanting to "touch" Oneness). Yet at same time you ask another poster where the idea that Jesus is God comes from - which is part of the Trinity Doctrine and that part supported by the opening of Saint John's Gospel. To deny Jesus is God and also speak of manifestations sounds like some type of modalism.

The reason people mention the "isms" you wish to avoid is because it helps us more quickly to understand a view of God being expressed that is obviously not a belief in a Trinity Doctrine rather than having to continue playing 20 questions. Some who actually understands and believes the Trinity Doctrine would not use incarnation to describe either the Father or the Holy Spirit. So obviously that Doctrine is not your belief.

Those 'isms' come in all sorts of variations even within a single label like modalism/monarchianism. One label sometimes because they all share similar ideas about the nature of God. Such labels should not be used here as a slam and I don't they were in this thread, but as an attempt to understand more fully where you are coming from.
Does anything here sound remotely close to your beliefs about God?
Monarchianism - Wikipedia
or this?
Subordinationism - Wikipedia

 

[Righttruth]

But this response does not jive with your or my prior statements.
A post was made implying blindness (in your words now apparently - because of an "unyielding soul") if there was a lack of understanding in the expression of the Holy Spirit being an "incarnation" of God. My reply earlier to your use of that expression and our "unyielding soul" in not accepting it was essentially that we are more blind if we attempt to use words we either do not understand or use incorrectly (a Spirit cannot be an "incarnation" because that word invokes having flesh).In between all that you corrected yourself replying to another poster and said the word should have been "manifestation" not "incarnation". So am a little lost now, but it would appear you are using language that suggests something like a modalist or Oneness concept as another poster mentioned (but you then denied wanting to "touch" Oneness).

Knowing truth is an on going process. Nobody can claim to know God perfectly. That is the reason I participate here.

Yet at same time you ask another poster where the idea that Jesus is God comes from - which is part of the Trinity Doctrine and that part supported by the opening of Saint John's Gospel.

John's 1:1 does not imply that Jesus is God. Word was God, not Word is God.

To deny Jesus is God and also speak of manifestations sounds like some type of modalism.

It may, but I don't know much of modalism.

The reason people mention the "isms" you wish to avoid is because it helps us more quickly to understand a view of God being expressed that is obviously not a belief in a Trinity Doctrine rather than having to continue playing 20 questions. Some who actually understands and believes the Trinity Doctrine would not use incarnation to describe either the Father or the Holy Spirit. So obviously that Doctrine is not your belief.

I don't believe in the orthodox Trinity belief though I believe in the Trinity in the sense of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are Three Persons considered in a special way as personified in the Bible though Father and the Holy Spirit are Spirit.

Those 'isms' come in all sorts of variations even within a single label like modalism/monarchianism. One label sometimes because they all share similar ideas about the nature of God. Such labels should not be used here as a slam and I don't they were in this thread, but as an attempt to understand more fully where you are coming from.
Does anything here sound remotely close to your beliefs about God?
Monarchianism - WikipediaSubordinationism - Wikipedia
or this?

I strongly rely on my personal conviction and the essence of the verses in the Bible without any bias.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Knowing truth is an on going process. Nobody can claim to know God perfectly. That is the reason I participate here.



John's 1:1 does not imply that Jesus is God. Word was God, not Word is God.



It may, but I don't know much of modalism.



I don't believe in the orthodox Trinity belief though I believe in the Trinity in the sense of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are Three Persons considered in a special way as personified in the Bible though Father and the Holy Spirit are Spirit.



I strongly rely on my personal conviction and the essence of the verses in the Bible without any bias.

I get what you keep repeating. I don't get why you wouldn't go to the wiki links I gave and help us understand your "personal conviction" position better.

 

[Philip_B]

Knowing truth is an on going process. Nobody can claim to know God perfectly. That is the reason I participate here.

John's 1:1 does not imply that Jesus is God. Word was God, not Word is God.

Tread very carefully with the tense you are implying here, you should explore the matter of tense in Hebrew very carefully, for though this passage was written in Koine Greek, it relies of the LXX and the Hebrew text that precedes it. Personally I would conclude that the text says that the Word was God and implies that the Word is God.

It may, but I don't know much of modalism.

I suggest you examine it, especially if you are going to make bold statements about the Holy Trinity. Wikipedia will probably give you a good intro. Highlight the word and right click and choose search google for 'modalism'.

I don't believe in the orthodox Trinity belief though I believe in the Trinity in the sense of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are Three Persons considered in a special way as personified in the Bible though Father and the Holy Spirit are Spirit.

It is self evident that you do not believe in the Orthodox Trinity. I have to say however that I am no more informed about what you do believe. Given that you do not know what modalism is, I wonder also if you have really grasped orthodox teaching of the Holy Trinity. You might like to read Athanasius 'Defense of the Nicene Definition'. You may find it very helpful. It is an oldie, but a goodie, as they say.

I strongly rely on my personal conviction and the essence of the verses in the Bible without any bias.

If we do not learn from each other we will never advance our knowledge, as each generation will need to start at the beginning. That means that we will be exposed to the lessons that other have learned - you may call that bias, others may call that experience, or even wisdom.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Only Gospel books (Matthew and Luke) mention about virgin birth of Jesus—a profound and sublime belief of a true believer in Jesus Christ. It was prophesized by Isaiah. We don’t find the mention of this miraculous and exalting birth anywhere else in the NT.

Unfortunately, Paul, the only one to mention of His birth, appears to sound that it is an ordinary one! The only well-known religious leader to record about virgin birth happens to be Mohammed in Koran!

Are we not unduly giving full importance to one rank outsider and totally disregarding another?

So, where does Galatians 4:4 play into all of this? Galatians 4:4 Interlinear