• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The spirit isn't ANYTHING TO YOU once it leaves you. YOU DIE WHEN THIS BREATH LEAVES YOU. ITS NOT A "THING" THAT IS IMMORTAL like you are suggesting.
I am not suggesting that the spirit is immortal. But the fact that it leaves you after you die suggest that it is still alive, even if only in a sleep state.
The spirit/breath is like you life support, once it is unplugged you die. The thing that MAKES YOU YOU IS YOUR SOUL.
According to scriptures, Man himself is a living soul.

*The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground (body), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit); and man became a living soul.* -- (Gen 2:7).

As we read in the verse above, Man’s spirit was united with Man’s body to form a physical union which generated life in Man as a living soul. Man himself is the living soul.

In the context of the verse above, the living soul is the life generated in Man through the physical union of his spirit and body.

When the spirit is separated from the body, the life of Man as a living soul ceases to exists.
That is the COMPONENT OF YOU THAT IS COLLECTED IN HADES WHEN YOU DIE.
The only component of me that is collected in Hades when I die is my body.

*The dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.* -- (Eccl 12:7).
YOU ARE IN FACT ONLY BODY AND SOUL, AND THEN GOD BREATHES HIS BREATH IN YOU TO GIVE YOU LIFE.
I disagree.

I am in fact a single unit of body and spirit, and the unity of my body with my spirit generates life in me as a living soul.

*The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground (body), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit); and man became a living soul.* -- (Gen 2:7).
BUT ONCE THAT BREATH LEAVES, YOU BODY DECAYS, AND YOUR SOUL IS COLLECTED IN HADES AND REMAINS IN A SLEEP STATE UNTIL IT IS RAISED UP AND PUT INTO A NEW BODY IN THE RESURRECTION.
I have a different view of it.

When my body dies, my spirit leaves and returns to God who gave it, my body is buried in Hades (Eccl 12:7) and my life as a living soul ceases to exists. My spirit remains with God in a sleep state until it is reunited with a new body at the resurrection which regenerates life in me as a living soul.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

YHWH's Lion

Active Member
Oct 24, 2015
223
38
45
✟23,095.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Now you're making stuff up. The water was already LITERALLY there. And when God made HIS FIRT UTTERANCE, he brought forth LIGHT into existence. NOT water AND light, ONLY light. So therefore you have to study further to understand why it is happening this way.
Read genesis 1 again, it says "in the beginning Elohim created heavens and the earth", so before Elohim creates Light HE created heavens and the earth (including the waters) than Elohim created Light. That's what the Bible says, not that the Earth was already there.
 
Upvote 0

cgaviria

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
1,854
184
38
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Visit site
✟30,853.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
When my body dies, my spirit leaves and returns to God who gave it, my body is buried in Hades (Eccl 12:7) and my life as a living soul ceases to exists. My spirit remains with God in a sleep state until it is reunited with a new body at the resurrection which regenerates life in me as a living soul.

Not so, because if that were true then how is it said in this scripture that the soul is in Hades,

For you shall not abandon my soul in Hades, nor shall you give your sacred one to see corruption. (Psalms 16:10 [ABP])

The soul, which is what your being is, is what goes to Hades. The spirit that is in you, is a breath that gives your body and soul life, once this breath leaves you, you die. You SOUL which is where your BEING, is collected in Hades, and your body, RETURNS TO THE GROUND.

There is alot of worldly philosophy concerning these things that confuses many as to the scriptural difference between each of these things.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Site Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,424
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
For you shall not abandon my soul in Hades, nor shall you give your sacred one to see corruption. (Psalms 16:10 [ABP])
That's generally considered a messianic prophecy concerning Our Lord's death and resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

cgaviria

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
1,854
184
38
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Visit site
✟30,853.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
That's generally considered a messianic prophecy concerning Our Lord's death and resurrection.

It is. But even in this prophecy is reflected that EVERYONE that dies, including Jesus Christ, their souls are collected in Hades. His soul was not abandoned in Hades, but was resurrected on the 3rd day. So will all that are his be raised at his second coming. And then the rest of the souls there will be resurrected at the last judgment.
 
Upvote 0

YHWH's Lion

Active Member
Oct 24, 2015
223
38
45
✟23,095.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't side with Mormons, I side with scripture. And yes God did have more sons, hence,

And it came to pass this day, and behold, [*4*came *1*the *2*sons *3*of God] to stand before the LORD, and the devil came in the midst of them. (Job 1:6 [ABP])

This verse speaks of angels, who are ALSO considered sons of God. Therefore, it comes to question, how is Jesus Christ an ONLY SON OF GOD THEN? It is because ONLY HE was created DIRECTLY BY THE FATHER, and then when JESUS BEGAN UTTERING THE WORLD INTO EXISTENCE, DID ALL LIFE COME THROUGH HIM. This is why he is ALSO FIRSTBORN OF CREATION. BECAUSE HE WAS CREATED FIRST, THEN ALL LIFE WAS CREATED AFTER THROUGH HIM. Its pretty clear if you just unlearn everything you've been taught growing up, and just let the scripture speak to you.
show us where the bible teaches that Angels are called Sons of God, the verses in Job and Genesis speak about the Sons of God but you interpret it to mean Angels. It COULD mean that but the scripture doesnt link the term Sons of God to Angels directly. So by taking a definite position on the subject you are doing so by your own interpretation only.
 
Upvote 0

cgaviria

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
1,854
184
38
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Visit site
✟30,853.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
show us where the bible teaches that Angels are called Sons of God, the verses in Job and Genesis speak about the Sons of God but you interpret it to mean Angels. It COULD mean that but the scripture doesnt link the term Sons of God to Angels directly. So by taking a definite position on the subject you are doing so by your own interpretation only.

Sure,

And it came to pass this day, and behold, [*4*came *1*the *2*sons *3*of God] to stand before the LORD, and the devil came in the midst of them. (Job 1:6 [ABP])

This scripture is referring to angels. And also this scripture,

[*5*were beholding *1*And *2*the *3*sons *4*of God] the daughters of men, that they are good, that they took to themselves women from all of whom they chose. (Genesis 6:2 [ABP])

This verse is speaking of angels that disobeyed their respective commands and came down and joined themselves with women.
 
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,075
✟15,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Sure,

And it came to pass this day, and behold, [*4*came *1*the *2*sons *3*of God] to stand before the LORD, and the devil came in the midst of them. (Job 1:6 [ABP])

This scripture is referring to angels. And also this scripture,

[*5*were beholding *1*And *2*the *3*sons *4*of God] the daughters of men, that they are good, that they took to themselves women from all of whom they chose. (Genesis 6:2 [ABP])

This verse is speaking of angels that disobeyed their respective commands and came down and joined themselves with women.

Alas, you haven't answered @YHWH's Lion
 
Upvote 0

cgaviria

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
1,854
184
38
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Visit site
✟30,853.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
show us where the bible teaches that Angels are called Sons of God, the verses in Job and Genesis speak about the Sons of God but you interpret it to mean Angels. It COULD mean that but the scripture doesnt link the term Sons of God to Angels directly. So by taking a definite position on the subject you are doing so by your own interpretation only.

The Genesis account is indeed referring to angels, as men were already taking women for themselves and bearing children. And not just that, but how do you suppose that giants were born from this particular union of sons of God and women? Clearly here it is already indicating an unnatural union causing these giants. Just by these two arguments can you already suspect that it is referring to angels. Now, if you can bear this, the Book of Enoch goes into greater detail concerning this matter. And the Book of Enoch is quoted various times in new testament epistles, so I therefore regard it as an authoritative book regarding the matter of angels combining with women.
 
Upvote 0

YHWH's Lion

Active Member
Oct 24, 2015
223
38
45
✟23,095.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Oh my. Another one of those: "You know, God is like ICE" comments. While these may well be suitable examples of the IDEAS of men and their teachings, I have found NONE in the scriptures.

Blessings,

MEC
How can Christ be equal to God in Philippines 2:6 and also the Father be greater?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,103
6,136
EST
✟1,121,021.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Genesis account is indeed referring to angels, as men were already taking women for themselves and bearing children. And not just that, but how do you suppose that giants were born from this particular union of sons of God and women? Clearly here it is already indicating an unnatural union causing these giants. Just by these two arguments can you already suspect that it is referring to angels. Now, if you can bear this, the Book of Enoch goes into greater detail concerning this matter. And the Book of Enoch is quoted various times in new testament epistles, so I therefore regard it as an authoritative book regarding the matter of angels combining with women.

They weren't "giants."

Keil and Delitsch Gen_6:4
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: these are the heroes (
הַגִּבֹּרִים) who from the olden time (מֵעֹולָם, as in Psa_25:6; 1Sa_27:8) are the men of name” (i.e., noted, renowned or notorious men). נְפִילִים, from נָפַל to fall upon (Job_1:15; Jos_11:7), signifies the invaders (ἐπιπίπτοντες Aq., βιαῖοι Sym.). Luther gives the correct meaning, “tyrants:” they were called Nephilim because they fell upon the people and oppressed them.

The mention of a non-canonical writing such as "Enoch" does not canonize that writing. There is no evidence that any book named "Enoch" today is the "Enoch" alluded to in the book of Jude. the only reference to a writing named "Enoch" in the entire Bible. Paul quoted from Greek philosophers five times that did not make the entire writing canonical.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,103
6,136
EST
✟1,121,021.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How can Christ be equal to God in Philippines 2:6 and also the Father be greater?

Did you read the entire passage?

Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.
What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?


Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [
יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [
יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.

In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 45:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.

In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas

(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)

Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias

(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)

Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.


“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.

Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108

Link to: Hoover Article
 
Upvote 0

cgaviria

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
1,854
184
38
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Visit site
✟30,853.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
They weren't "giants."

Keil and Delitsch Gen_6:4
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: these are the heroes (
הַגִּבֹּרִים) who from the olden time (מֵעֹולָם, as in Psa_25:6; 1Sa_27:8) are the men of name” (i.e., noted, renowned or notorious men). נְפִילִים, from נָפַל to fall upon (Job_1:15; Jos_11:7), signifies the invaders (ἐπιπίπτοντες Aq., βιαῖοι Sym.). Luther gives the correct meaning, “tyrants:” they were called Nephilim because they fell upon the people and oppressed them.

The mention of a non-canonical writing such as "Enoch" does not canonize that writing. There is no evidence that any book named "Enoch" today is the "Enoch" alluded to in the book of Jude. the only reference to a writing named "Enoch" in the entire Bible. Paul quoted from Greek philosophers five times that did not make the entire writing canonical.

Is the canonization of books that compile our bibles not made by men? It is referenced in Jude, and also various teachings throughout the new testament are teachings that also exist in the Book of Enoch. Therefore, it deserves credit. However, with caution, which is why I say, "if you can bear it". I am unsure from which manuscripts we derive our current English translations from, as those writings are from antiquity, much older than the new testament writings, so therefore reason stands to conclude that it has been passed down by many hands that could've altered the text. Im even cautious with the texts we currently have EVEN IN OUR CANON, so I am also cautious with this text. However, I hold the teaching of the angels combining with women as true, because its the only logical explanation for the ORIGIN OF DEMONS, which are different beings than angels. And the Book of Enoch also expounds on the purpose of Hades. I have read the entire book and have not found anything contradictory to scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,075
✟15,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
I would respectfully suggest that if members wish to discuss the canonicity of Enoch, giants and so on, that this be followed up in another thread. I myself as an Oriental Orthodox have a specific opinion on this point, but I do not want to make it in this thread for obvious reasons.
 
Upvote 0

Berean777

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
Feb 12, 2014
3,283
586
✟29,509.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"However when the apostles actually got around to baptised new members in Jesus Christ, the Apostles would follow the formal trinitarian prayer by saying in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."


That simply is not supported by scripture, examples of apostles baptizing in the name of Jesus is.

The reason they were baptizing "in the name of Jesus" is not that it was a formula but that the phrase, "in the name of," means "in the authority of." We can see proof of this in Acts 4:7-10 below -

"And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, 'By what power, or in what name, have you done this?' 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, 'Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health.'"

The Jews asked, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" Peter answers and says that it was in the name of Jesus that they healed. In other words, "in the name of Jesus" means that it is by the power and authority found in Christ. We can see this usage many places in the New Testament.

As you can see, "in the name of the Lord Jesus" and "in the name of Jesus" speaks of "in the authority of Jesus." Therefore, when someone is properly baptized, they are baptized in the name of Jesus, that is, by the authority of Jesus. Therefore, when they are properly baptized in the name of Jesus, they should say, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" just as Jesus commanded us to do in the following versus -

Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Jesus empowered his disciples by breathing on them the Holy Ghost and by sending them in twos, in every town and city and commanded them to baptise in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So what you are claiming is that the apostles were disobedient to the great commission command to baptise in the trinity formulea as commanded of them by the Lord and so they modified it by taking out the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

If I was to entertain your formulea that baptism is in the name of Jesus only, when scripture has the Lord spell out that formulea, then my question to you is -

If Jesus told you to do something exactly how he spelled it out, then are you not compelled to follow his instruction to the jot and tittle?

That is,

When Jesus gives an instruction so clearly defined as in the Matthew verse above, then will you regard Jesus as the final authority in this matter or will you content with him?

See the point I am trying to make is that you ignore what the Lord has instructed and sent as part of the great commission, the very disciples who wrote the Acts of the apostles and you have side lined him by redefining the name of Jesus as the formulea for baptism, rather than authority.
 
Upvote 0

Berean777

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
Feb 12, 2014
3,283
586
✟29,509.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As it happens, I heartily agree. My default assumption is that when in doubt, you can ascribe the unusual manifestations of God to the Spirit. Frankly I don't see that stuff as non-negotiable dogma anyway. But if one must eschew the Trinity, I can only see increasing the number of manifestations rather than decreasing them. Non-Trinitarians in my experience typically require all sorts of logical contortions (up to and including reinventing the entire universe of scriptural exegesis) to justify their peculiar beliefs when a prima facie reading of the entire canon readily indicates three major manifestations of God.

No, no and no. Increasing the manifestations is right up alley to the universal one world religion.

I want you to come forth and say that the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians and the myriads of religions out there who have their false gods manifesting in one form or another is NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.

Please make your intentions clear, so that I can step back from thinking that your supporting a universal one world religion that is supported by your religious head.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Site Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,424
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No, no and no. Increasing the manifestations is right up alley to the universal one world religion.

I want you to come forth and say that the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians and the myriads of religions out there who have their false gods manifesting in one form or another is NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.

Please make your intentions clear, so that I can step back from thinking that your supporting a universal one world religion that is supported by your religious head.
o_O

I have my status set as Catholic. That isn't just for fun and games. Plus, I regularly post in sub-forums which require assent to the historic creeds. My belief in Nicene-theology is implied.

Frankly the entire tone of your post is unnecessarily accusatory and combative. Please use a calmer tone in the future if you wish for me to reply.
 
Upvote 0

Berean777

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
Feb 12, 2014
3,283
586
✟29,509.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Father and the Son comes to us through their divine essence of the Holy Spirit.
I am not saying that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus. I am simply asking why He is not, since Jesus was conceived by Him.

The person by whom we are conceived is considered to be our father, is it not?

So why is the person of the Holy Spirit not considered to be the Father of the person of Jesus, even though Jesus was conceived by Him?

This only makes sense if the Holy Spirit is the divine essence of Father and Son.

The Father is simply using His own essence (Holy Spirit) to conceive a Son, just as a human father uses his own essence (human sperm) to conceive a son.
Even though Jesus was eternally divine, He only became the Son after His incarnation. Jesus as the Son of God was both human and divine. Before His incarnation He was the eternal "Word" but He was not the divine, human Son.

From a human reference point of you, God created them man and women and told them to be fruitful and multiply, therefore a human father who falls within the cycle of created beings, that is creatures, can conceive another created being through the miracle of being fruitful and multiply. However the Christ/Living Word is not a created being or creature. Scripture tells us the following -

Philippians 2:6-8
6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!

Can the Creator conceive the Creator from a human point of reference?

No, this would undermine his very being, because God doesn't conceive under the guidelines of being fruitful and multiply, from a human procreation point of reference. So the above is impossible.

So what does it mean to conceive when God conceives God in Mary's womb?

To bring forth, meaning to enter into. The one indivisible Spirit who is God (John 4:4), entered into his own creation as the Emmanuel, by putting on the garment of his servants. That is why in Philippians versus above, God takes the very nature of a servant, making himself in human likeness.

Whenever the one Spirit is doing this in the Old and New Testaments we see a pattern emerging, who who this person is declared as.

Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Daniel even highlighted that the Living Word is the distinct person of the one infinite Spirit who is defined as the Son of man.

Daniel 7:13
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

So when the person of the Living Word is visible in the world, even before the incarnation, he is called the Son.

I want to also highlight that your statement below is in error and must be scrutinised. The reason why I went to such extreme with the above versus is to flatly reject your claim, as being nonsense, without any disrespect projected towards you beloved brother.

He only became the Son after His incarnation.

In fact the Living Word when he manifested himself in the world, as the Angel of Yahweh's presence in the Old Testament and dined with Abraham and wrestled with Jacob, was both Devine and also the Son. Th exception is in the incarnation, where he emptied himself of the Devine authority and humbled himself to the death on the cross.

Now the Devine Logos spent 33 years in human form without the Devine authority that he had and has forever more.

In fact consider this.............

How could a Devine being be conceived by anyone, if he emphatically states the following -

John 2:19
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

No human being can say I am conceived by someone, yet I will raise myself up from the grave on the third day. The word conceived is therefore from a non human procreation point of view and is related to bringing forth into the world as the verse below declares.

Hebrews 1:5
5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

When invisible God bringeth forth (conceives) visible God (Yahweh calls down fire from Yahweh), then the versus above apply not only to the incarnation, but also from the reference point of the angels who worshipped him, before humanity also came to worship him as the Jesus chicest of Nazareth.

It is undeniable that the Logos was made visible to the Angels before humanity was also invited to be the many sons (Angels) of God.

Just by the context of the verse below, we can discern that God brought forth the Son into the world even before his incarnation, as it states in sundry (past) times to the Old Testament fathers. He appeared to them as the Angel of Yahweh's presence. The apostle even hints that this is not the first time that God had spoken to us through the Son, as he had spoken to the Old Testament fathers like Moses and now for the LAST DAYS has also spoke to us, the New Testament apostles.

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The visible Yahweh of the invisible Yahweh is described as follows -

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

So in conclusion the Son who is the Devine Logos, who being the visible Yahweh of the invisible Yahweh spoke to both the Old and the New Testament saints. This means that the Son was begotten, meaning brought forth into creation from when the Angels were created, because a clear reference is made to Angels and then in latter times to the human family.
 
Upvote 0

Berean777

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
Feb 12, 2014
3,283
586
✟29,509.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
o_O

I have my status set as Catholic. That isn't just for fun and games. Plus, I regularly post in sub-forums which require assent to the historic creeds. My belief in Nicene-theology is implied.

Frankly the entire tone of your post is unnecessarily accusatory and combative. Please use a calmer tone in the future if you wish for me to reply.

Ok, my apologies, that was never my intention as I made it clear.

Please kindly answer my question asked of you in my previous post, as to whether you support a universalist one world religious ideology?
 
Upvote 0

Berean777

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
Feb 12, 2014
3,283
586
✟29,509.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As Jesus said I come with a sword to separate my sheep from the rest of the world. Universalism (interfaith) is the world and as Christians we should not be supporting such apostate venture.

To be frank and honest with one another, we must make our intentions clear upfront, rather than fishing people along to impregnate them with hints of universalism, which is tied to myriads of manifestations of false gods of the false religions of the world.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.