So Jesus is not fully God?

[canadyjd]

The Greek phrase "προς τον θεον" indicates someone other than God.
And it is twice said of the Word. And the Word also "was God."

The phrase gives us insight into the three separate persons within the one Godhead, while demonstrating the equality between persons.

You seem to be making the case for the Word being a separate God (polytheism) or a created being (Archangel Michael perhaps?).

There is a great mystery in the existence of God and the incarnation. There is dichotomy in attempting to explain three persons but one God. Our language fails to fully express it and perhaps human beings lack the faculties to fully grasp it.

Your theology leans toward the Jehovah Witness belief that Jesus was the Archangel Michael.

peace to you

 

[37818]

God eternally has existed as the Father, the Word/Son, and the Holy Spirit!

You are repeating your argument. The Greek phrase προς τον θεον refers to someone other than God. And is said of the Word twice. Why?

 

[37818]

The phrase gives us insight into the three separate persons within the one Godhead, while demonstrating the equality between persons.

You seem to be making the case for the Word being a separate God (polytheism) or a created being (Archangel Michael perhaps?).

There is a great mystery in the existence of God and the incarnation. There is dichotomy in attempting to explain three persons but one God. Our language fails to fully express it and perhaps human beings lack the faculties to fully grasp it.

Your theology leans toward the Jehovah Witness belief that Jesus was the Archangel Michael.

peace to you

Baptist John Gill believed the Archangle Michael, ". . . By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": . . ." On Jude 1:9.

In John 1:1-2 the Word is referred to twice to be someone else than God, and that besides being He was God.

The Word as "was God" did not change in the incarnation, John 1:14, but how He was with the God is what changed.

 

[37818]

God is the uncaused existence, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." -- Acts of the Apostles 17:28, the Apostle Paul in an opening arguement.

The Word is God the sole uncaused Cause, John 1:1-3, ". . . the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Ephsians 3:9, ". . . in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: . . ."

The Word is someone beside God uncreated being as God is uncreated being, making the Word equal as God. They are the uncaused God distinct and the same Spirit. Compare Romans 8:9, Romans 8:16, John 4:24.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11:10 PM Pacific.

 

[37818]

Uncaused Existence
Uncaused Cause
Uncaused Essence

There is no first Uncaused.
Cause is contingent on Existence.
Uncaused Existence, Cause and Essence are one Essence.

 

[rsr]

Forgive me for being dense. I cannot figure out exactly the point that 37818 is attempting to make and others take issue with. I think 37818 are mistaken about eternal generation as being the "fruit of Arianism" unless you mean that it was adopted in opposition to Arianism, which it was.

You apparently claim to be a non-Chalcedonian Trinitarian, but I am not sure on what basis.

 

[canadyjd]

Baptist John Gill believed the Archangle Michael, ". . . By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": . . ." On Jude 1:9.

In John 1:1-2 the Word is referred to twice to be someone else than God, and that besides being He was God.

The Word as "was God" did not change in the incarnation, John 1:14, but how He was with the God is what changed.

I understand that Gill, and others, viewed “Archangel Michael” as a title for the 2nd person within the Godhead; the pre-incarnate Christ: Also the eternal Word: a Christophany in the OT.

He would not have separated Him from the Godhead as you are doing.

You have said he is an “eternal one”, meaning an eternal Archangel. Considering your repeated references to creation apart from God, I believe your theology is clearly influenced by Jehovah Witnesses.

You stated earlier that you were a “Baptist Christian”. I’ve never heard it expressed that way.

Do you mean, by that, that you are a Jehovah Witness that believes in baptism by immersion?

Your theology clearly fits that description.

peace to you

 

[percho]

Seems to hold that Jesus became the Sin at the Incarnation!

I would state it as, The Word became the Son at being brought forth by the virgin Mary and they named him Jesus as instructed?

Question.

Had Joseph known his wife before she brought forth that, in her, which had been conceived out of Spirit and was holy, would he have been brought forth, holy and would it have been possible to name him Jesus?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11:10 PM Pacific.

This thread is closed.