Let's discuss the diety of Jesus Christ

Originally posted by rwingett
My primary sources for all these claims, as I've stated elsewhere, are the books of Bart Ehrman, who I don't believe is involved with the Jesus Seminar. Ehrman started out as a conservative, evangelical Christian who believed in biblical inerrancy. He attended the Moody Bible College, Wheaton Bible College, the Princeton Theological Seminary, and is current ...[text shortened]... on – Why We Suffer - 2008 (Unlike the others, this one deals with the problem of evil)

Thanks, perhaps I will give one of his books a try.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have given two Biblical references already, if you cannot find them, let me know, and i will give you the references AGAIN! as for having heart palpitations, you had better see the trinitarians, for each and every argument i have presented is logical, firmly rooted in scripture, was taught and demonstrated by Christ himself, and what is more, it h ...[text shortened]... t.

Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 were the references, and here is another Proverbs 8:22

For Christ himself has stated, Your Word (Gods Word, the Holy Bible), is Truth!


This hardly seems a sustainable interpretation of John 17:17.


Jaywill, though not tackling this claim directly (i.e., that logos here means the Bible), has certainly addressed it indirectly through his other quotations from the same gospel—John (1:1 and John 1:14), both of which refute the notion that John used the word logos to mean written (or even spoken) “words”. I might add John 14:16 as well, where Jesus associates aleithia (“truth”, literally what is unconcealed) with either himself, or the divine I-am, or both (depending on one’s theology, which point is immaterial here).


Quite frankly, what John 17:17 says is that God’s logos, which is an aspect of the godhead itself, is aleithia.


“Word” is a very narrow, and sometimes unfortunate, translation of logos, which itself has (and had at the time John was writing) much broader meaning. Unfortunately, translators cannot always (or perhaps even often) find a word in their language which captures the range and depth of meanings of a particular word in the original language. And so, the original meaning-sense(s) can get lost. It might be particularly ironic that one of the meanings of logos is—meaning!

_______________________________________________


As Jaywill also indicated, trinitarian Christianity does not say that Jesus, as the Christ, is the same as the father, nor that the logos is the same as ho pater. The orthodox trinitarian view is neither that of a separable trinity, nor a blurred singularity of three modes of behavior (which would be Sabellianism, I think). It is a triunity that the paradoxical language of the Definition of Chalcedon tries to get at: three manifest expressions (hypostases) of one ousia (essence).


Some people see the Chalcedonian formulation as paradoxical (it is that, at least), others as simply contradictory. Whatever view one holds (e.g., monophysitism), it is helpful to try to understand what the trinitarians were/are trying to say, and not argue against what they are not even trying to say.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]For Christ himself has stated, Your Word (Gods Word, the Holy Bible), is Truth!


This hardly seems a sustainable interpretation of John 17:17.


Jaywill, though not tackling this claim directly (i.e., that logos here means the Bible), has certainly addressed it indirectly through his other quotations from the same gospel—John (1:1 and Jo ...[text shortened]... trinitarians were/are trying to say, and not argue against what they are not even trying to say.[/b]

=========================
As Jaywill also indicated, trinitarian Christianity does not say that Jesus, as the Christ, is the same as the father, nor that the logos is the same as ho pater. The orthodox trinitarian view is neither that of a separable trinity, nor a blurred singularity of three modes of behavior (which would be Sabellianism, I think). It is a triunity that the paradoxical language of the Definition of Chalcedon tries to get at: three manifest expressions (hypostases) of one ousia (essence).
====================================

My chief concern is what is written in the Bible and not with what creeds may state.

The "Son ... given" in Isaiah 9:6 is called "eternal Father."

I am not required to logically reconcile the inherent tension in that passage with other passages. I am called only to believe.

Do not ask me how the Word can be with God and also be God. I don't know. I do know that I am called to believe.

I do not know how the Son can be sent by the Father, obey the Father, be raised by the Father and be called "Eternal Father", Himself clearly being the Son of God.

I am not called to be able to explain. I am called to believe.

To those who would press me as a "trinitarian" to explain how this could be, my reply:

"The question is too difficult for me to answer. Ask me something easier."

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Thanks, perhaps I will give one of his books a try.

==================
Thanks, perhaps I will give one of his books a try.
==========================

If you are near a good large public library with lectures on CD, you may find some of his.

I spend a lot of time in traffic so I often take out lectures from The Teaching Company or other organization which produces college courses on tape or CD.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================
As Jaywill also indicated, trinitarian Christianity does not say that Jesus, as the Christ, is the same as the father, nor that the logos is the same as ho pater. The orthodox trinitarian view is neither that of a separable trinity, nor a blurred singularity of three modes of behavior (which would be Sabellianism, I think)
[b] "The question is too difficult for me to answer. Ask me something easier." [/b]

[/b]1. I’m not sure that’s a good reading of Isaiah 9:6 (or translation, really: clearly you are reading that translation straightforwardly)—I’ll do some research into the Hebrew text; however, good “catch” on your part. (I know it wasn’t really a “catch”, but that’s the best phrase I could come up with on the moment. 🙂 )

2. You said previously that there is no separation (as opposed to “no distinction” ) between the second and third hypostases; are you saying there is no distinction between the first and the second?

3. Any time you say “I believe…”, you are making a creedal statement by definition, whether or not you understand what you are saying in that statement. You may not agree with, say, the Nicene Creed, as opposed to your own creedal position.

4. I have always respected your willingness to say, “I don’t know”—as well as your willingness to wrestle with that.


Anyway, I agree with you that logos does not (at least in the Gospel of John) refer to the Bible.

Originally posted by vistesd
1. I’m not sure that’s a good reading of Isaiah 9:6 (or translation, really: clearly you are reading that translation straightforwardly)—I’ll do some research into the Hebrew text; however, good “catch” on your part. (I know it wasn’t really a “catch”, but that’s the best phrase I could come up with on the moment. 🙂 )

2. You said previously th ...[text shortened]... I agree with you that logos does not (at least in the Gospel of John) refer to the Bible.[/b]

=============================
. You said previously that there is no separation (as opposed to “no distinction” ) between the second and third hypostases; are you saying there is no distinction between the first and the second?
======================================

As with the Son and the Spirit, so also with the Son and the Father. So also with the Spirit and the Father. So also with each of the Three _____ of the Trinity.

They are distinct, They are not separate. - Coinherance = Each lives within the other.

==============================
3. Any time you say “I believe…”, you are making a creedal statement by definition, whether or not you understand what you are saying in that statement. You may not agree with, say, the Nicene Creed, as opposed to your own creedal position.
=====================================

I said I cared more for what was written in the Bible than for what a creed states.

Didn't mean to imply creedal statements were to be altogether rejected.

============================
4. I have always respected your willingness to say, “I don’t know”—as well as your willingness to wrestle with that.


Anyway, I agree with you that logos does not (at least in the Gospel of John) refer to the Bible.
===================================

I am not sure what post of mine you are refering to. Was that me or someone else ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
. You said previously that there is no separation (as opposed to “no distinction” ) between the second and third hypostases; are you saying there is no distinction between the first and the second?
======================================

As with the Son and the Spirit, so also with the Son and the Father. So a ...[text shortened]... ====[/b]

I am not sure what post of mine you are refering to. Was that me or someone else ?[/b]

I love how you are able to explain complicated but essential doctrines so much clearer than Christ or Paul. You are truly talented.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
First-born (prototokos) is not to be interpreted literally in Col. 1:15 to mean that Christ was a created thing. This becomes obvious when we consider the immediate context. In the following two verses (vv. 16-17) Paul says that Christ existed before all things (ta panta). "All things" (ta panta) is absolutely exhaustive; that is, ing their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs.

to the congregation at Colossae, Asia Minor, the apostle Paul wrote concerning Jesus Christ, according to the Common Bible: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”—Col. 1:15-17.

What did the apostle mean by calling Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? Paul’s further words enlarge on the matter: “He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.”—Col. 1:18, CB.

Here we find that the Greek words for both “first-born” (protótokos) and “beginning” (arkhé😉 describe Jesus as the first one of a group of class, “the body, the church,” and therefore he has preeminence in this respect. He also has preeminence in being the first one resurrected to endless life from among all the human dead.—1 Cor. 15:22, 23.

The same Greek words occur in the Greek Septuagint translation at Genesis 49:3: “Ruben, thou art my first-born [protótokos], thou my strength, and the first [arkhé, “beginning”] of my children.” (Compare Deuteronomy 21:17, Septuagint.) From such Biblical statements it is reasonable to conclude that the Son of God is the firstborn of all creation in the sense of being the first of God’s creatures. In fact, Jesus refers to himself as “the beginning [arkhé] of God’s creation.” (Rev. 3:14, CB) The New World Translation renders the phrase in this verse: “the beginning of the creation by God.”

There are many who object to the idea of Jesus as being a created person. They argue that since “in him all things were created” (CB)—during his prehuman existence in heaven—Jesus himself could not be a creature. Such individuals believe that Jesus is himself Almighty God, the second person of a “trinity” of three coequal, coeternal persons in one “godhead.”

Individuals of that persuasion interpret the Greek expression (at Revelation 3:14) for “the beginning of God’s creation” as meaning “the origin (or ‘primary source&rsquo😉 of the creation of God.” One who prefers this idea is the noted Greek scholar Henry Alford. Nevertheless, in his work The Greek Testament, Alford concedes: “The mere word arkhé would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being: see Gen. xlix. 3; Deut. xxi. 17; and Prov. viii. 22. And so the Arians here take it, and some who have followed them: e.g. Castalio, ‘chef d’œuvre:’ ‘omnium Dei operum excellentissimum atque primum:’ [meaning “the first and most excellent of all God’s works”] and so Ewald and Züllig.”

According to The Expositor’s Greek Testament, to understand Revelation 3:14 as meaning that Jesus is “the active source” of creation, rather than the first created person, one must interpret arkhé “as in Greek philosophy and [non-Biblical] Jewish wisdom-literature,=aitía or origin.” The inspired Bible writers, however, never borrowed ideas from Greek philosophy. Unlike these trinitarians it may be added!!!

But how could Jesus be a creature if “in him all things were created”? At times the Bible uses the word “all” in a way that allows for exceptions. For example, we read at 1 Corinthians 15:27 (CB): “But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him [Jesus Christ],’ it is plain that he [God] is excepted who put all things under him.” As a further illustration the Bible states that “through one man,” Adam, “death spread to all men.” (Rom. 5:12, CB) Though Adam was not part of the “all men” to whom death “spread” (since previous to Adam there was no human who could have spread death to him), he was nonetheless a man. Similarly, though Jesus was not part of the “all things” that came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless, a created person, the very first creature of God. The Greek word panta in certain contexts means “all other,” as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18. (See An American Translation, Moffatt, Common Bible.) Hence, the New World Translation reads: “by means of him all other things were created . . . he is before all other things.”—Col. 1:16, 17.

Jesus’ being the firstborn of all creation involves the law of primogeniture, the right of the one born or produced first. From earliest times the real firstborn son enjoyed special privileges that included succeeding to headship of the household and inheriting a double portion of the father’s property. (Deut. 21:15-17) Kingship and priesthood, too, were inherited by the firstborn son of a king or high priest in ancient Israel.—See 2 Chronicles 21:3.

Since Jesus as the firstborn of all creation is a created person, he cannot be Almighty God. The SCRIPTURES repeatedly portray him as in a position subordinate to God. For example, concerning the resurrected Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul wrote: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor. 11:3, CB) When giving the inspired “Revelation” to the apostle John, Jesus said concerning himself: “He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.” (Rev. 3:12, CB)

Did you note that four times in this verse alone Jesus refers to his Father, Jehovah, as “my God”?—Compare Philippians 2:5, 6, CB.
In no way is this meant to deny the exalted position that Jesus occupies next to God. Before ascending to heaven, Jesus said to his disciples: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18, CB) It was appropriate for God to ‘give’ to his Son such authority, since the Son was the firstborn of all creatures. Right in line with primogenitureship, the apostle Paul could write concerning Jesus: “[God] raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church.”—Eph. 1:20-23, CB.

there is also compelling evidence from the sahidic coptic text, i reproduce it here for evryones benefit.

Colossians 1:15. Some modern Bible translators don't like the concept of Christ being part of the creation by God, though that is what the Greek indicates literally. So, in their versions they change "firstborn of" to "supreme over" or "having primacy over" all creation. Colossians 1:15 in Coptic has no such mistranslation. It definitely and literally uses a Coptic term that unmistakably means "first-born," i.e. pSrp mmise, comprising the Coptic words for "first" and "born," or "generated." It customarily means "first born child." (Smith's Dictionary, p. 15) Coptic scholar George Horner's English translation of the Sahidic text correctly reads: "the firstborn of all creation" at Colossians 1:15. And the Coptic text specifically says "of" all creation, not "over" all creation.

also those who are advocating this pre christian pagan doctrine would do well to consider the thirty or other so references, in scripture, where the term first-born is used, and watch out for those heart palpations ol Whodey was so worried about 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]For Christ himself has stated, Your Word (Gods Word, the Holy Bible), is Truth!


This hardly seems a sustainable interpretation of John 17:17.


Jaywill, though not tackling this claim directly (i.e., that logos here means the Bible), has certainly addressed it indirectly through his other quotations from the same gospel—John (1:1 and Jo ...[text shortened]... trinitarians were/are trying to say, and not argue against what they are not even trying to say.[/b]

what is is about 'the function', of 'the Word', and the term, 'Gods Word' you do not understand?

Though Epi can answer this for himself, I respond. And it is not the first time.

========================
to the congregation at Colossae, Asia Minor, the apostle Paul wrote concerning Jesus Christ, according to the Common Bible: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”—Col. 1:15-17.
=================================


The disussion of Christ being BOTH "the Firstborn of all creation" (v.15) and Him being [b]"Firstborn from the dead" concludes with the summary - " ... that He Himself might have the first place in all things." (v.18) [/b]

In the realm of the old creation, He has the first place. In the realm of the new creation, the creation stemming from the resurrection of Jesus and the formation of the church His Body, He also has the first place.

Peeminence is what binds the two concepts together and not the matter of time.

Elsewhere we read that the Word was God. (John 1:1). God is uncreated.

The uncreated God joined Himself to creation when "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14).

Jesus Christ is therefore the Creator as well as the creature.

"He is before all things" (17) does not mean that the Word was created and then became God. Rather the Word was God from eternity. When in time "the Word became flesh" in view of His preexistent divinity, "He is before all things, and all things cohere in Him".

=====================================
What did the apostle mean by calling Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? Paul’s further words enlarge on the matter: “He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.”—Col. 1:18, CB.
================================

John 1:14 says "the Word became flesh".

Flesh is an item of God's creation. There is no possibility of argument about that. In fact MAN is part of the creation of God - (Genesis 1:26,27)

Since "God created man ..." (Gen. 1:27), for God to become incarnated as a MAN is for God to cloth Himself in His own creation.

In joining Himself with His creation, as a man - Jesus of Nazareth, Christ became "the Firstborn of all creation".

The following sentences elaborate that through this Person all things came into existence - Because in Him all things were created ..."

This does not mean that after Jesus was born a man all things were created. It does mean that the Person who was incarnated as a man and thus Himself, joined to creation, nonetheless was responsible for being the means through which all things were created.

Time is not the factor. Preeminence is the factor, ie. " ... that He Himself might have the first place in all things."

I already challenged you to explain how God could ever be without His Wisdom ? I do not recall any rebuttal from you. So Proverbs 8:22 may personify the Wisdom of God. It does not logically follow that God created His Wisdom.

Rather as long as God existed (from eternity), the Wisdom of God also existed. So much for Proverbs 8:22 as a means to deny the Deity of Christ.

===============================
Here we find that the Greek words for both “first-born” (protótokos) and “beginning” (arkhé describe Jesus as the first one of a group of class, “the body, the church,” and therefore he has preeminence in this respect. He also has preeminence in being the first one resurrected to endless life from among all the human dead.—1 Cor. 15:22, 23.
======================================

I agree that Christ is timewise, the FIRST to be resurrected with the glorified humanity.

Christ Divinity is not partial or imcomplete in Colossians. Because " ... in Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell".

That is not "one third" of the fullness was pleased to dwell. Neither is it 33.33333 percent of the fullness was pleaswed to dwell.

That is "ALL THE FULLNESS was pleased to dwell" (19).

Therefore any suggestion that ALL of the fullness of God was not in the man Jesus is a false teaching. Though He expressed submission and obedience, and that even unto death as a slave, ALL THE FULLNESS was pleased to dwell in Jesus Christ.

He is God/man forever.

=========================
The same Greek words occur in the Greek Septuagint translation at Genesis 49:3: “Ruben, thou art my first-born [protótokos], thou my strength, and the first [arkhé, “beginning”] of my children.” (Compare Deuteronomy 21:17, Septuagint.) From such Biblical statements it is reasonable to conclude that the Son of God is the firstborn of all creation in the sense of being the first of God’s creatures. In fact, Jesus refers to himself as “the beginning [arkhé] of God’s creation.” (Rev. 3:14, CB) The New World Translation renders the phrase in this verse: “the beginning of the creation by God.”
====================================

You have yet to explain that if this is so, how could God be in eternity without the Wisdom of God, before He CREATED that Wisdom at some point.

The weight of evidence is against your polytheism. And the ancient discerning Christian teachers like Athanasius were wise to reject Arian teaching as a heresy.

===========================
There are many who object to the idea of Jesus as being a created person.
==============================

That is a mistake. To deny that the man Jesus is a MAN is to deny incarnation.

No, the Word Who was God became flesh. Flesh is part of the creation of God. Therefore it is most orthodox to admit that Jesus Christ is uncreated God from eternity clothed and joined with creation.

That is what incarnation means. And evangelicals should not in their zeal to maintain that Christ is God, undercut that Christ became a man.

He is Creator as well as creature. He is the mingling of the uncreated Divine Person with the created man.

===========================
They argue that since “in him all things were created” (CB)—during his prehuman existence in heaven—Jesus himself could not be a creature. Such individuals believe that Jesus is himself Almighty God, the second person of a “trinity” of three coequal, coeternal persons in one “godhead.”
=================================


It should be as plain as the nose on your face - " ... the Word was with God and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh."

It amounts to the uncreated eternal God joined Himself with created man, was incarnated to be our Lord Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 9:6 ALREADY informed us - the "child ... born" is called "Mighty God" and the "Son ... given" is called "Eternal Father".

The weight of evidence is against your polytheism.

And you lack the assurance that you have met this Christ and are saved by this Christ. This is NO ACCIDENT.

In essence you are in rebellion against Jehovah and are in rejection to Christ. You should repent from your rebellion and receive Christ the Lord into your heart. Then you would have the assurance of eternal redemption.

As it stands, you are not sure. The Jehovah Witnesses saw to it that you would not be certain. And you aren't.

That teaching has so suspicioned you against Jesus Christ that Satan holds you back from being saved.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is is about 'the function', of 'the Word', and the term, 'Gods Word' you do not understand?

What is it about the multiple meanings of the word logos you do not understand? What is it about John’s statement that “the logos was God” do you not understand? What is it about his statement that “the logos became flesh” that you do not understand?

One doesn’t have to be a trinitarian to understand that these are not references to the Bible (which would entail that the Bible was/is God!). One does not have to be a trinitarian to think that John was probably not inconsistent in his use of the word logos.

Logos can mean a written or spoken word, yes. It can also mean inward thought, principle, logic, reason, the pattern of the way things are (Chinese Bibles translate it in John as “Tao” ), appearance; it can mean “meaning”. It is derived from the verb legein: to arrange in order. Now that is just from a quick look at a few lexicons.

Now I’ve done enough homework for you. You can have the last sarcastic word if you wish.

Originally posted by jaywill
Though Epi can answer this for himself, I respond. And it is not the first time.

========================
to the congregation at Colossae, Asia Minor, the apostle Paul wrote concerning Jesus Christ, according to the Common Bible: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven esus Christ that Satan holds you back from being saved.

Haha, you talk of heresy, when you people have accepted, an essentially pagan, idolatrous and blasphemous doctrine, borrowed from Greek philosophy, which contradicts the teachings of the Christ in both word and in deed, has no basis whatsoever in scripture and promulgates a lie. it is to laugh!

eternal life is a free gift Jaywill, from God himself, who are you to say who will receive it and who will not? If you are saved, well good for you, but i realise that God is not finished with me yet, i have much to learn and mistakes have and will be made, but no, not you born again Christians, you are able to tell to others in the most condescending manner imaginable, whether they are saved or not, and yet you are unable to make a distinction between the Almighty and the Christ, it is to laugh! 😀

Originally posted by vistesd
What is it about the multiple meanings of the word logos you do not understand? What is it about John’s statement that “the logos was God” do you not understand? What is it about his statement that “the logos became flesh” that you do not understand?

One doesn’t have to be a trinitarian to understand that these are not references t ...[text shortened]... ns.

Now I’ve done enough homework for you. You can have the last sarcastic word if you wish.

actually i think id better leave you with you perceptions, for to be sure, not only are you able to tell others what you think, but you seem to be possessed of the uncanny ability of telling others what they think as well, its really quite amazing.

i suggest that you look up the sahidic coptic text, then you may come back to the forum a little better informed, now there is some homework for you, you will of course notice that i did not dare to condescend to do it for you, in the hope that you may come to your own conclusions, rather than me telling you what it is you should think, isn't that refreshing?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Haha, you talk of heresy, when you people have accepted, an essentially pagan, idolatrous and blasphemous doctrine, borrowed from Greek philosophy, which contradicts the teachings of the Christ in both word and in deed, has no basis whatsoever in scripture and promulgates a lie. it is to laugh!

eternal life is a free gift Jaywill, from God himsel ...[text shortened]... yet you are unable to make a distinction between the Almighty and the Christ, it is to laugh! 😀

================================
Haha, you talk of heresy, when you people have accepted, an essentially pagan, idolatrous and blasphemous doctrine, borrowed from Greek philosophy, which contradicts the teachings of the Christ in both word and in deed, has no basis whatsoever in scripture and promulgates a lie. it is to laugh!
====================================

You may laugh. You may jeer. You may roll across the floor and sneer.

You will find nothing in any pagan religion like the coinherance of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

This thought of the Triune God did not come about by human imagination. And no one proposing to start a religion would ever think up something like this.

Rather the Trinity is the sign over the doorpost of the New Testament telling mankind to leave his self trust in his reasoning at the door. It is your faith in what God has said in His word which will save you.

The truth of the Trinity I take as EVIDENCE that the Bible is not the product of human imagination.


==============================
eternal life is a free gift Jaywill, from God himself, who are you to say
=========================


This eternal life is the life of God.

Ephesians four says that fallen man is alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18)[/b]

It is God Himself. What is more subjective to a person than his life? Man as a fallen sinner, is alienated from the life of God.

For us to recieve Jesus is to recieve the life of God. That is why we go on to call Him Father.

There are attributes of God which He will not communicate. We can never be Him in His Headship or Godhead. But we can receive Him as life.

Once again before you forget. Paul says that the fallen sinners are estranged from "the life of God".

Now go back and read - "In Him was LIFE"

"I am the resurrection and the LIFE"

"Christ who is our LIFE"

"He who has the Son has the LIFE" .

"The last Adam became a LIFE giving Spirit"


What do all these passages mean? WHAT DO THEY MEAN ??


They MEAN that in His salvation God gives to us HIMSELF to live within US.

"CHRIST IN YOU, THE HOPE OF GLORY" .

The salvation is a PERSON. It is not to go to a happy place. It is not even to go to a happy kingdom. It is primarily to receive a living Person - Jesus Christ Who is the life of God from which the fallen sinners were "alienated" (Eph. 4:18)


SO, We continue to stress to receive the Living Person of Jesus into your being. Let Jesus the Person into your heart.

But what you are clinging to is your good knowledge about an objective God far away. It may be good knowledge. But what God wants is for you to RECIEVE HIM in CHIRST to be your realm of life, your sphere of life.

"He who has the Son has the LIFE"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Haha, you talk of heresy, when you people have accepted, an essentially pagan, idolatrous and blasphemous doctrine, borrowed from Greek philosophy, which contradicts the teachings of the Christ in both word and in deed, has no basis whatsoever in scripture and promulgates a lie. it is to laugh!

eternal life is a free gift Jaywill, from God himsel ...[text shortened]... yet you are unable to make a distinction between the Almighty and the Christ, it is to laugh! 😀

===============================
unable to make a distinction between the Almighty and the Christ, it is to laugh!
==================================

Polytheism you have there.

Now, you can tall us all about the hundreds of polytheistic religions of the nations before and after the New Testament.

The Egyptians had polytheism. And Arius with his Almighty God and Mighty God being TWO gods in the Bible is polytheism.

And you are complaining about the Trinity ? With your Word who was with one God but Himself was another created God ?

Triune God is the revelation of the Bible.