Why Did God Tell Israel That He is One?

[LeviR]

It means "came into existence" (and humans come into existence by being born, or, you could argue, by being conceived).

John 8:57,58 (W.E.B.)
57 The Jews therefore said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”.
58 Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.”.

I just checked with the Liddell Scott Lexicon regarding the verb Trinitarians misused in John 8:58

Here’s what they say:

γίγνομαι γί-γνομαι is syncopated from γι-γένομαι, the Root being ΓΕΝ; cf. aor. 2 γενέσθαι, γένος, etc.; so Lat. gi-gno for gi-geno

γίγνομαι

come into a new state of being

(Show lexicon entry in LSJ Middle Liddell Autenrieth) (search)

γενέσθαι

verb aor inf mid

Hey, look at that. More proof on my side. This lexicon is good in that it uses other sources besides the scripture.
And they all go around telling everyone Jesus existed before Abraham as the I AM of Exodus 3:14.

That has to be something that came from the RCC…..who,else.

 

[LeviR]

Isn’t that wonderful. Abraham longed to see the day when Jesus comes into his inheritance so that Abraham may come with him. And he did see it, afar off.
Jesus’ day is the day he comes with Abraham and all of the adopted sons of Abraham with them.
What a great day that will be.

 

[TMSO]

Still 38-0

Just give me 1 verse that uses that form of the verb to mean as your scholars claim, “was born”.
Just one.

Can you score 1 point against my 38?

If not, we’ll have to call it a blowout. And John 8:58 definitely debunked.

So, Abraham was never born? I mean, what do we call it when a person isn't existing, and then, one day, at a hospital, now exists? Before Abraham existed, that is before Abraham was even a glint in his father's eye, right? Before Abraham came into existence, a poof in the middle of a field where he was found by his parents to be. There, he wasn't born, he just poofed into existence, and found Jesus already standing there wondering why Abraham was late.

How about a more literal translation? "58 Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;'" Wait, that still points towards birth. Hmmm. Can't win can you. Still points to, before Abraham's existence, Jesus is. Funny how when speaking in the past tense, Jesus speaks of Himself in the present tense. Hmmm... Only God can do that. Why? He is eternal, so every point in time is the present tense.

Besides, your argument means that Jesus can't be the sacrifice for our sins since Jesus is just a man, and therefore, "For all have sinned". Unless Jesus was different, then Jesus isn't different. A man can't even die for His own sin, let alone someone else's. People die every day, yet not one sin is remitted. Not even their own sin. What is different about Jesus that transcended the temporal world, and cracked into eternity? Only something eternal can do that. Only something eternal can take Abraham's credited faith, and cash it out as righteousness. Until Jesus came, all Abraham had was righteousness on credit. After Jesus rose again, Abraham and all the Old Testament Saints walked out of Paradise. Jesus led captive a host of captives. That is more than a man could ever hope to do, considering a man can't even raise himself from the dead.

Son means in the likeness of, in the image of. So if Jesus is the Son of God, then, being in the likeness of, that would make Jesus God or a god. Just as when a teacher has a child, that child is not a teacher, but that child is absolutely... human. A son, or daughter in the likeness of the parents. So Son of God, who also called Himself son of man. John 1:1, in the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Nothing that was created was created without Christ. So, did Jesus create Himself? Logical fallacy and circular reasoning. The Word took upon itself flesh, and pitched His tent amongst us (humanity), and lived among us. God and man in perfect unity. Hence Jesus is the perfect mediator between God and man, being both. No person can tell God, you have no idea what it is to be a human. He'll just say, "Sure do...been there done that."

 

[LeviR]

So, Abraham was never born? I mean, what do we call it when a person isn't existing, and then, one day, at a hospital, now exists? Before Abraham existed, that is before Abraham was even a glint in his father's eye, right? Before Abraham came into existence, a poof in the middle of a field where he was found by his parents to be. There, he wasn't born, he just poofed into existence, and found Jesus already standing there wondering why Abraham was late.

How about a more literal translation? "58 Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;'" Wait, that still points towards birth. Hmmm. Can't win can you. Still points to, before Abraham's existence, Jesus is. Funny how when speaking in the past tense, Jesus speaks of Himself in the present tense. Hmmm... Only God can do that. Why? He is eternal, so every point in time is the present tense.

Besides, your argument means that Jesus can't be the sacrifice for our sins since Jesus is just a man, and therefore, "For all have sinned". Unless Jesus was different, then Jesus isn't different. A man can't even die for His own sin, let alone someone else's. People die every day, yet not one sin is remitted. Not even their own sin. What is different about Jesus that transcended the temporal world, and cracked into eternity? Only something eternal can do that. Only something eternal can take Abraham's credited faith, and cash it out as righteousness. Until Jesus came, all Abraham had was righteousness on credit. After Jesus rose again, Abraham and all the Old Testament Saints walked out of Paradise. Jesus led captive a host of captives. That is more than a man could ever hope to do, considering a man can't even raise himself from the dead.

Son means in the likeness of, in the image of. So if Jesus is the Son of God, then, being in the likeness of, that would make Jesus God or a god. Just as when a teacher has a child, that child is not a teacher, but that child is absolutely... human. A son, or daughter in the likeness of the parents. So Son of God, who also called Himself son of man. John 1:1, in the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Nothing that was created was created without Christ. So, did Jesus create Himself? Logical fallacy and circular reasoning. The Word took upon itself flesh, and pitched His tent amongst us (humanity), and lived among us. God and man in perfect unity. Hence Jesus is the perfect mediator between God and man, being both. No person can tell God, you have no idea what it is to be a human. He'll just say, "Sure do...been there done that."

“Before Abraham’s coming, I am” is from the YLT. It seems Young knew the verb did not mean “was” or “was born”. He’s right.
If he had translated it literally it would have read, “before Abraham to become, I am”.
Another way of saying that is what he wrote, “Before Abraham’s coming, I am”. Which if understood with the literal has to mean that Abraham’s coming, And that before he does, Jesus is.

I just posted from Liddell Scott Lexicon which states that the verb refers to “come into a new state of being”. Which is exactly what happens to Abraham by resurrection from the dead. He will be in a new state of being without sin and corruption to live eternally.

You can deny these facts all you want. Denying it doesn’t change it.

Liddell Scott is good in that it makes use of other Ancient Greek text.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Binyawmene and makesends,

Jesus Christ is both God and man. As a man, he has no sin, and he is impeccable or not capable of sinning.

Such a view makes his trials and temptations make-believe, play-acting and how can we follow his example. Maybe you have some method of accommodating the following, but I do not know how.

Psalm 40:6–10 (KJV): 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, 8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. 9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. 10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.

Hebrews 5:7–9 (KJV): 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

1 Peter 2:21–25 (KJV): 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

1 Corinthians 11:1 (KJV): Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Romans 8:3 (KJV): 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Galatians 5:24 (KJV): And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Ah, you teach the "Jesus Exception" doctrine.

Jesus was holy, in a positive way as his character was complete, revealing the full character of God, he was "full of grace and truth". In a negative sense he was also holy because he never sinned.

Those verses doesn't teach that Jesus Christ obtained a status of holiness. He is the Holy One eternally.

Isaiah 6 is a vision of Jesus on the future Temple Throne in Jerusalem during the 1000 years. In some respects it is parallel with Isaiah 2:1-4.

The Bible doesn't teach nestorianism. The Hypostatic Union does not teach any form of Divine interference or intervention, like no Divine has materially assisted in physical bodily powers and mental faculties, nor any Divine element entered into training and development, etc. We do believe that his sinless human nature has influenced the physical growth, but there was no Divine guidance being involved in a genetic makeup and genotype of the impeccability.

Many words, but Luke 1:34-35 simply teaches that God the Father was the father and Mary the mother of Jesus, the Son of God. The holiness of the child born was not attributable to somehow God the Son being injected into Jesus. Jesus was born with human nature, and this was the same fallen, sin-prone nature that we all share, and this was introduced as a result of Adam's sin.

The Trinity doesn't teach separate beings. Now I think you are getting desperate and creating straw mans. I wouldn't expect straw mans from you since you've 'seem to be' informed of both the Trinity and Hypostatic Union.

I am not really aware of the Trinity as it has many contradictions. I certainly do not have a clue as to what is meant by "Hypostsatic Union".

TrevorL said:
John 6:69 (KJV): And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Yes, not God the Son. Two separate Beings.
Not to be supporting @TrevorL in any way, but to be fair, he wasn't saying that Trinity teaches two separate beings. He says that they ARE two separate beings.

I am not sure if this is "Trinity language". Peter, James and John were separate "Beings". Jesus during his ministry was and is now a "Being". Yes, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God ARE two separate beings.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Fred]

It’s not “one God in three persons”, it’s “one God, the Father.”
I got the clue.

Youn are dodging the fact presented in post #176 because it refutes your heresy.

 

[TMSO]

“Before Abraham’s coming, I am” is from the YLT. It seems Young knew the verb did not mean “was” or “was born”. He’s right.
If he had translated it literally it would have read, “before Abraham to become, I am”.

Another way of saying that is what he wrote, “Before Abraham’s coming, I am”. Which if understood with the literal has to mean that Abraham’s coming, And that before he does, Jesus is.

No. It is saying that before Abraham was born, which is, before Abraham came into being, Jesus existed in the present tense. He used God's name in the Greek.

I just posted from Liddell Scott Lexicon which states that the verb refers to “come into a new state of being”. Which is exactly what happens to Abraham by resurrection from the dead. He will be in a new state of being without sin and corruption to live eternally.

Except you stopped there. You didn't actually look into Liddell Scott, or you would have found where it says that when this verb is used of a person, it means "to be born".

γίγνομαι γί-γνομαι is syncopated from γι-γένομαι, the Root being ΓΕΝ; cf. aor. 2 γενέσθαι, γένος, etc.; so Lat. gi-gno for gi-geno.

I.Radical sense, to come into being, Lat. gigni:
1.of persons, to be born, νέον γεγαώς new born, Od.; γεγονέναι ἔκ τινος Hdt.; more rarely ἀπό τινος id=Hdt.; τινος Eur.:—with Numerals, ἔτεα τρία καὶ δέκα γεγονώς, Lat. natus annos tredecim, Hdt., etc.

The above was cut and pasted from Lidell Scott.

You can deny these facts all you want. Denying it doesn’t change it.

I say the same to you. You can deny these facts in what Jesus clearly stated all you want. Denying it doesn't change it.

Liddell Scott is good in that it makes use of other Ancient Greek text.

Yes, which is why I find great support in how he actually tells us what the word means in relation to people. It means to be born. A KJV Lexicon has this

Parts of SpeechVerb

Ginomai Definition​

1. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2. to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
   1. of events
3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
   1. of men appearing in public
4. to be made, finished
   1. of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5. to become, be made

It all makes it mean the same thing. Jesus was talking about Abraham back in the past in history, and then saying while Abraham was past tense, I was present tense. Before Abraham came into existence, began to be, received being, perhaps appeared in history (which history started with his birth that has mention in scripture), Jesus is. Simply translated as, Before Abraham was (that is before he existed/came into existence), I Am.

Consider John 18:4-6:
"4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, “Whom are you seeking?”
5 They answered Him, “Jesus [a]of Nazareth.”
Jesus said to them, “I am He.” And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them. 6 Now when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground."

Now consider the reason why "He" is in italics is because it is not in the text in the Greek. He is again, using God's name, which would explain why they drew back and fell to the ground. The actual Greek line is "ego eimi" and is connected to the Hebrew name Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‎) "I am that I am". This is the same thing Jesus said in John 8:58. "Ego eimi"... "I Am".

 

[LeviR]

No. It is saying that before Abraham was born, which is, before Abraham came into being, Jesus existed in the present tense. He used God's name in the Greek.

Except you stopped there. You didn't actually look into Liddell Scott, or you would have found where it says that when this verb is used of a person, it means "to be born".

γίγνομαι γί-γνομαι is syncopated from γι-γένομαι, the Root being ΓΕΝ; cf. aor. 2 γενέσθαι, γένος, etc.; so Lat. gi-gno for gi-geno.

I.Radical sense, to come into being, Lat. gigni:
1.of persons, to be born, νέον γεγαώς new born, Od.; γεγονέναι ἔκ τινος Hdt.; more rarely ἀπό τινος id=Hdt.; τινος Eur.:—with Numerals, ἔτεα τρία καὶ δέκα γεγονώς, Lat. natus annos tredecim, Hdt., etc.

The above was cut and pasted from Lidell Scott.

I say the same to you. You can deny these facts in what Jesus clearly stated all you want. Denying it doesn't change it.

Yes, which is why I find great support in how he actually tells us what the word means in relation to people. It means to be born. A KJV Lexicon has this

Parts of SpeechVerb

Ginomai Definition​

1. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2. to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
   1. of events
3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
   1. of men appearing in public
4. to be made, finished
   1. of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5. to become, be made

It all makes it mean the same thing. Jesus was talking about Abraham back in the past in history, and then saying while Abraham was past tense, I was present tense. Before Abraham came into existence, began to be, received being, perhaps appeared in history (which history started with his birth that has mention in scripture), Jesus is. Simply translated as, Before Abraham was (that is before he existed/came into existence), I Am.

Consider John 18:4-6:
"4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, “Whom are you seeking?”
5 They answered Him, “Jesus [a]of Nazareth.”
Jesus said to them, “I am He.” And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them. 6 Now when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground."

Now consider the reason why "He" is in italics is because it is not in the text in the Greek. He is again, using God's name, which would explain why they drew back and fell to the ground. The actual Greek line is "ego eimi" and is connected to the Hebrew name Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‎) "I am that I am". This is the same thing Jesus said in John 8:58. "Ego eimi"... "I Am".

You are still trying to change the verb to mean “was born”. How many times, and from how many lexicons do you need to see that the verb means “to become”?

When Liddell Scott says “of persons, to be born” it does NOT mean “was born” there is another verb that means was born.

If we replaced the idea of “to be born” in the sentence it would read, “before Abraham to be born, I am”. It is necessary in the English to add the “to” to the verb. As in “to become”

Christ is firstborn from the dead by resurrection, and all his brethren are also to be born from the dead by resurrection.

Abraham is to be born from the dead by resurrection. However, Christ needs be born from the dead first or chiefly. Because if he is not raised, your faith is in vain. And so is Abraham’s.

 

[LeviR]

Greetings again Binyawmene and makesends,

Such a view makes his trials and temptations make-believe, play-acting and how can we follow his example. Maybe you have some method of accommodating the following, but I do not know how.

Psalm 40:6–10 (KJV): 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, 8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. 9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. 10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.

Hebrews 5:7–9 (KJV): 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

1 Peter 2:21–25 (KJV): 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

1 Corinthians 11:1 (KJV): Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Romans 8:3 (KJV): 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Galatians 5:24 (KJV): And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Jesus was holy, in a positive way as his character was complete, revealing the full character of God, he was "full of grace and truth". In a negative sense he was also holy because he never sinned.

Isaiah 6 is a vision of Jesus on the future Temple Throne in Jerusalem during the 1000 years. In some respects it is parallel with Isaiah 2:1-4.

Many words, but Luke 1:34-35 simply teaches that God the Father was the father and Mary the mother of Jesus, the Son of God. The holiness of the child born was not attributable to somehow God the Son being injected into Jesus. Jesus was born with human nature, and this was the same fallen, sin-prone nature that we all share, and this was introduced as a result of Adam's sin.

I am not really aware of the Trinity as it has many contradictions. I certainly do not have a clue as to what is meant by "Hypostsatic Union".

I am not sure if this is "Trinity language". Peter, James and John were separate "Beings". Jesus during his ministry was and is now a "Being". Yes, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God ARE two separate beings.

Kind regards
Trevor

When John was exhorting believers, who already knew that Christ had come, and believed he did. He told them they must believe Jesus had come in the flesh or else they would have a spirit of antichrist. If someone had come along(RCC) suggesting that the flesh of Christ was in any way different than their flesh it would be antichrist teaching.
Our flesh is called sinful flesh. If you call his flesh something else, it is to have a spirit of antichrist. It is to claim his flesh was unlike ours.

 

[LeviR]

@TrevorL
The RCC invented another doctrine they call “immaculate conception”. This doctrine claims that the flesh of Mary was made different flesh than everyone else so that she could give birth to Jesus who then would also have different flesh.
If that is true, then God could have NOT been able to condemn the sin in the flesh with the sacrifice of Christ. It would be impossible. Sin in the flesh cannot be condemned where there is no sin in the flesh.

 

[TMSO]

You are still trying to change the verb to mean “was born”. How many times, and from how many lexicons do you need to see that the verb means “to become”?

Yes the main verb γίγνομαι means "to become". That isn't the form used in the verse.

When Liddell Scott says “of persons, to be born” it does NOT mean “was born” there is another verb that means was born.

Again that is for

If we replaced the idea of “to be born” in the sentence it would read, “before Abraham to be born, I am”. It is necessary in the English to add the “to” to the verb. As in “to become”

Sure, except that isn't the word used in the verse. The actual word used is γενέσθαι, which is the aorist (past tense) form of γίγνομαι. The word used is not ginomai, but genesthai. So it would not be translated as "to be" anything, but as was something, or came. Simple past tense that speaks of a simple event that took place at one point in the past. So, it can be properly translated in English as "was born", "was", before Abraham "came into existence", before Abraham came, etc. Aorist tense. It depends on how exactly one wants to portray what the person speaking in greek is saying into English. You can make it really rough and do a word for word translation using a dictionary, or you can actually translate it into proper sounding English and get their meaning across. Up to you. I prefer getting the true meaning across, so in this case it would be "was born", "came", "came into existence" (hence "was born", since that is how a human comes into existence), etc.

Perhaps if I hadn't spent some time studying linguistics/languages I wouldn't care so much about the mishandling of language.

 

[LeviR]

Yes the main verb γίγνομαι means "to become". That isn't the form used in the verse.

Again that is for

Sure, except that isn't the word used in the verse. The actual word used is γενέσθαι, which is the aorist (past tense) form of γίγνομαι. The word used is not ginomai, but genesthai. So it would not be translated as "to be" anything, but as was something, or came. Simple past tense that speaks of a simple event that took place at one point in the past. So, it can be properly translated in English as "was born", "was", before Abraham "came into existence", before Abraham came, etc. Aorist tense. It depends on how exactly one wants to portray what the person speaking in greek is saying into English. You can make it really rough and do a word for word translation using a dictionary, or you can actually translate it into proper sounding English and get their meaning across. Up to you. I prefer getting the true meaning across, so in this case it would be "was born", "came", "came into existence" (hence "was born", since that is how a human comes into existence), etc.

Perhaps if I hadn't spent some time studying linguistics/languages I wouldn't care so much about the mishandling of language.

The form used in the verse is used in 37 other verses. I have 37 witnesses from scripture.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: John 1:12

This is the same form of the verb. It refers to the ones who had received him.
John is not referring to giving those ones the right to become sons of God unless they receive him.
He is not saying that they were sons of God before they received him.

IOW, before they to become, they must receive him.

The past of “to become” is the receiving of him.

The past of Abraham to become is that he believed on him.

 

[Binyawmene]

Such a view makes his trials and temptations make-believe, play-acting and how can we follow his example.

Not at all. There is no Bibical requirement that the Son must have a sinful nature in order to experience human weakness. Then he magically develops divine attribute of righteousness from human weaknesses. Like the Son's lack of knowledge is not a sin according to the human nature. The Son knows what it is like to be tempted, but he does not know what it is like to sin. And the Son’s inability to sin does not make his temptations less genuine. After all, the Son has experienced a real physical birth, to grow bodily, to increase in wisdom, to be accident prone, to have sufferings, to have infirmities, restrictions, and limitations by the normal constraints of his humanity without sin, even death. This is real in the experience of the Son as any other human being.

Maybe you have some method of accommodating the following, but I do not know how.

Not a method, but a Biblical doctrine called "Impeccability of Christ." Maybe if you drop the idea that the Son has a sinful nature. Because it is affecting the way you think and coming up with distorted views especially about the 'Imputed Righteousness." You also might be conflating "sin" with "weakness." Having bodily weakness is not a sin, temptation is not a sin, and even anger is not a sin. For example,

Was Christ sinning during the crucifixion?

2 Corinthians 13:4 For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him in our dealing with you.​

Not at all. The Son's human weakness doesn't produce "righteousness," but rather it produces "obedience." The Son, as God in the flesh, is not going to zap his holy sinless human nature every time he encounters a weakness. Under this economic, he chose not to prevent but allows the human nature to function within its own respective laws. He economically submitted himself in the cooperation to his own flesh. Which is done for us and for our salvation to bring life and peace. Not to a fallen sinful nature that bring only sin and death. But rather, he accepts the weakness for what it is, conforms to it, experiences it, and becomes obedient to it in order to be our High Priest.

Hebrews 5:8-9 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him​

Jesus was holy, in a positive way as his character was complete, revealing the full character of God, he was "full of grace and truth". In a negative sense he was also holy because he never sinned.

There is none that is righteous. And no man-made works can produce an equivalent righteousness on the same value level of God's righteousness. The Son according to the human nature doesn't develop holiness and righteousness. And then, once perfected that righteousness, it magically turn into a divine attribute equally to God's divine attribute of righteousness. Thus, having the character of God in fulness, which is absurd. Our imputed righteousness is not produced by a man and then given to us. As I have said many times before in this Trinity forum. If you really examine and scratch underneath the surface of Unitarian's Christology, then they turn Jesus Christ into some kind of demi-god. They won't admit to it, but that is exactly what they are doing in their Christology.

Philippians 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.​

​

Romans 3:21-22 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,​

​

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, SO THAT IN HIM WE MIGHT BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD.​

Many words, but Luke 1:34-35 simply teaches that God the Father was the father and Mary the mother of Jesus, the Son of God. The holiness of the child born was not attributable to somehow God the Son being injected into Jesus. Jesus was born with human nature, and this was the same fallen, sin-prone nature that we all share, and this was introduced as a result of Adam's sin.

The Hypostatic Union teaches there is only "One Person of Christ." We don't believe that "God the Son being injected into Jesus," which is two-persons and Nestorianism. And we don't believe the Son's human nature is a fallen and sinful. Which brings sin and death. We believe the Son-Person is impeccable or not capable of sinning. And his human nature is holy and not affected by original sin. Even during his temptations there was no sinful fleshly desires. He experienced temptation (which is not a sin) but never experienced that desire of a sinful nature of being "dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed" because desire produce sin and sin produce death. It's impossible to have a sinful nature and not commit sin. You will fall short of the glory of God.

James 1:14-15 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.​

The Son has no sinful nature and sin living in him:

Romans 7:15-20 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.​

The Son has no fleshly desires in conflict with the Holy Spirit:

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.​

The Son having a fallen sinful nature is pure fiction and unbiblical. Therefore, the MESSIAH is the Jehovah tsidkenu "The Lord Our Righteous Savior" (Jeremiah 23:5-6) and "the Righteousness Of Our God and Savior (2 Peter 1:1).

 

[LeviR]

Not at all. There is no Bibical requirement that the Son must have a sinful nature in order to experience human weakness. Then he magically develops divine attribute of righteousness from human weaknesses. Like the Son's lack of knowledge is not a sin according to the human nature. The Son knows what it is like to be tempted, but he does not know what it is like to sin. And the Son’s inability to sin does not make his temptations less genuine. After all, the Son has experienced a real physical birth, to grow bodily, to increase in wisdom, to be accident prone, to have sufferings, to have infirmities, restrictions, and limitations by the normal constraints of his humanity without sin, even death. This is real in the experience of the Son as any other human being.



Not a method, but a Biblical doctrine called "Impeccability of Christ." Maybe if you drop the idea that the Son has a sinful nature. Because it is affecting the way you think and coming up with distorted views especially about the 'Imputed Righteousness." You also might be conflating "sin" with "weakness." Having bodily weakness is not a sin, temptation is not a sin, and even anger is not a sin. For example,

Was Christ sinning during the crucifixion?

2 Corinthians 13:4 For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him in our dealing with you.​

Not at all. The Son's human weakness doesn't produce "righteousness," but rather it produces "obedience." The Son, as God in the flesh, is not going to zap his holy sinless human nature every time he encounters a weakness. Under this economic, he chose not to prevent but allows the human nature to function within its own respective laws. He economically submitted himself in the cooperation to his own flesh. Which is done for us and for our salvation to bring life and peace. Not to a fallen sinful nature that bring only sin and death. But rather, he accepts the weakness for what it is, conforms to it, experiences it, and becomes obedient to it in order to be our High Priest.

Hebrews 5:8-9 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him​

There is none that is righteous. And no man-made works can produce an equivalent righteousness on the same value level of God's righteousness. The Son according to the human nature doesn't develop holiness and righteousness. And then, once perfected that righteousness, it magically turn into a divine attribute equally to God's divine attribute of righteousness. Thus, having the character of God in fulness, which is absurd. Our imputed righteousness is not produced by a man and then given to us. As I have said many times before in this Trinity forum. If you really examine and scratch underneath the surface of Unitarian's Christology, then they turn Jesus Christ into some kind of demi-god. They won't admit to it, but that is exactly what they are doing in their Christology.

Philippians 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.​

​

Romans 3:21-22 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,​

​

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, SO THAT IN HIM WE MIGHT BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD.​

The Hypostatic Union teaches there is only "One Person of Christ." We don't believe that "God the Son being injected into Jesus," which is two-persons and Nestorianism. And we don't believe the Son's human nature is a fallen and sinful. Which brings sin and death. We believe the Son-Person is impeccable or not capable of sinning. And his human nature is holy and not affected by original sin. Even during his temptations there was no sinful fleshly desires. He experienced temptation (which is not a sin) but never experienced that desire of a sinful nature of being "dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed" because desire produce sin and sin produce death. It's impossible to have a sinful nature and not commit sin. You will fall short of the glory of God.

James 1:14-15 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.​

The Son has no sinful nature and sin living in him:

Romans 7:15-20 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.​

The Son has no fleshly desires in conflict with the Holy Spirit:

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.​

The Son having a fallen sinful nature is pure fiction and unbiblical. Therefore, the MESSIAH is the Jehovah tsidkenu "The Lord Our Righteous Savior" (Jeremiah 23:5-6) and "the Righteousness Of Our God and Savior (2 Peter 1:1).

Please answer me this question. How can God condemn sin in the flesh where there is no sin in the flesh?

 

[Binyawmene]

Please answer me this question. How can God condemn sin in the flesh where there is no sin in the flesh?

The Son is like us in every way, except for the sin part (Hebrews 2:17, 1 Peter 2:22). He is not born into sin, but he is the atonement for sins and is our Righteousness One (1 John 2:1-2). If he was born into sin, then that makes him a sinner and not the last Adam and our High Priest (Romans 5:12-14, 1 Corinthians 15:22, Hebrews 4:15, 7:26). His flesh is a sin offering by carrying our sins to the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 10:5-7, 1 John 4:10, Hebrews 9:26-28), which he did not carry his own sin (1 John 3:5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.). Carrying our sins doesn't imply that he has a sinful flesh (1 Peter 1:19 "but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect."). If he had a sinful flesh, then the bodily sacrifice would be corrupted.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

If he was born into sin, then that makes him a sinner

Having the lusts of the flesh does not make a person a sinner. It is only when we yield to these lusts that we actually sin. Jesus never yielded to these lusts and his temptation in the wilderness is one evidence of this. The greatest example of his overcoming these lusts was in his trial, sufferings, crucifixion and death, when he "crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts".

Romans 8:3 is a summary and conclusion to what was developed in Romans 7 where Paul failed to keep the Law. Romans 8:3 contrasts Paul's experience of failure with what God through His Son has achieved, the overcoming and rendering the lusts of the flesh ineffectual. Jesus opens the way to salvation and as such he becomes our representative, our captain of salvation and we follow and receive forgiveness if we identify with his death and resurrection through belief and baptism and then live the crucified/resurrected life. Representation, not substitution..

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[LeviR]

The Son is like us in every way, except for the sin part (Hebrews 2:17, 1 Peter 2:22). He is not born into sin, but he is the atonement for sins and is our Righteousness One (1 John 2:1-2). If he was born into sin, then that makes him a sinner and not the last Adam and our High Priest (Romans 5:12-14, 1 Corinthians 15:22, Hebrews 4:15, 7:26). His flesh is a sin offering by carrying our sins to the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 10:5-7, 1 John 4:10, Hebrews 9:26-28), which he did not carry his own sin (1 John 3:5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.). Carrying our sins doesn't imply that he has a sinful flesh (1 Peter 1:19 "but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect."). If he had a sinful flesh, then the bodily sacrifice would be corrupted.

When speaking of Jesus being without sin it can only refer to him not personally sinning. That’s what it would mean for the Lamb to be without blemish or defect. He would have to be without fault. Not guilty of sinning.
You can’t examine flesh to see if it’s sinful or not because it’s only made sinful by the law. Without law there could be no sin.
And the way in which man sins is shown by James 1:13-15. It starts with temptation, or desires of the flesh. The desire brings forth the act of sin, and the act brings forth death.

However, we all don’t die because we all act upon temptation. We all die because Adam did. Death has passed to all man because all sinned in Adam. When he sinned, we all sinned in him. But we are not guilty of his act of sin, we are guilty of being like him when he sinned.
Why else would Jesus have been baptized?
John’s baptism was a baptism for the remission of sin.

When it’s said that God sent his son in the likeness of sinful flesh, it was so that the sin that resides in the flesh of all, which cause temptation to sin, could be condemned on the cross and salvation made possible.
Salvation is made possible because God accepted the sacrifice of His son who was made like us in every way, and tempted in every way as us, but never gave in to temptation.
So we look to him as the one who overcame the world and pathed the way. And we are baptized into him for the remission of all our past sins, and become new creatures to walk in newness of life, and to have him as a mediator when we sin again, who can empathize with us because he suffered as us.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Binyawmene and LeviR

If he had a sinful flesh, then the bodily sacrifice would be corrupted.

You can’t examine flesh to see if it’s sinful or not because it’s only made sinful by the law. Without law there could be no sin.

Many or most translations give the rendition "sinful flesh" but this verse has the same word S#266 three times:

Romans 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful S#266 flesh, and for sin S#266, condemned sin S#266 in the flesh:

Note that this is the only place where this word is translated "sinful".
266 ἁμαρτία [hamartia /ham·ar·tee·ah/] n f. 174 occurrences; AV translates as “sin” 172 times, “sinful” once, and “offense” once. 1A to be without a share in. 1B to miss the mark. 1C to err, be mistaken. 1D to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong. 1E to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin. 2 that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act. 3 collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many.
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

My understanding of this is that the first occurrence can be translated "flesh of sin" or "sin's flesh". Jesus came in the same flesh as we possess, it is "sin's flesh" because in everyone else it is the flesh that actually sins. There is a sensitive use of the word "likeness". This can mean "sameness", but it also hints at the fact that although Jesus possessed the same nature which in ALL others has been the source of sin, in Jesus he never allowed the flesh to have dominance.

The second use of "sin" has the literal meaning. There is a problem, that man has sinned, and there is a need to find a solution to this problem.

The third occurrence is different again. "Sin" here is used as either a personification, in the sense of "King Sin", or metonymy where "sin" represents the lusts of the flesh which normally cause sin. God through Jesus condemned, passed judicial judgement against, make of no effect, render impotent the lusts of the flesh.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[LeviR]

Greetings again Binyawmene and LeviR


Many or most translations give the rendition "sinful flesh" but this verse has the same word S#266 three times:

Romans 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful S#266 flesh, and for sin S#266, condemned sin S#266 in the flesh:

Note that this is the only place where this word is translated "sinful".
266 ἁμαρτία [hamartia /ham·ar·tee·ah/] n f. 174 occurrences; AV translates as “sin” 172 times, “sinful” once, and “offense” once. 1A to be without a share in. 1B to miss the mark. 1C to err, be mistaken. 1D to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong. 1E to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin. 2 that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act. 3 collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many.
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

My understanding of this is that the first occurrence can be translated "flesh of sin" or "sin's flesh". Jesus came in the same flesh as we possess, it is "sin's flesh" because in everyone else it is the flesh that actually sins. There is a sensitive use of the word "likeness". This can mean "sameness", but it also hints at the fact that although Jesus possessed the same nature which in ALL others has been the source of sin, in Jesus he never allowed the flesh to have dominance.

The second use of "sin" has the literal meaning. There is a problem, that man has sinned, and there is a need to find a solution to this problem.

The third occurrence is different again. "Sin" here is used as either a personification, in the sense of "King Sin", or metonymy where "sin" represents the lusts of the flesh which normally cause sin. God through Jesus condemned, passed judicial judgement against, make of no effect, render impotent the lusts of the flesh.

Kind regards
Trevor

I think “flesh of sin” means the same as “sinful flesh” in that the flesh is the source of sin. in fact, it’s the origin of evil.

We know from at least the age of twelve Jesus was about doing his Father’s work. So I don’t think he ever had any interest in anything the world he entered had to offer. Anything that would even remotely be considered a luxury, he wasn’t having.
He knew all about that stuff right from the get. The only treasure he had or was ever interested in was above.
He had an advange in that he knew that very early on.
He saw right through temptation.
I think the only time he really struggled with it was when he knew it was time to go to Jerusalem and be killed. He asked his Father if there might be another way. His flesh dripped as blood. His flesh was agonizing over what it was about to suffer. He said “not my will but yours be done”.
Our troubles come because our fleshly bodies and minds want things that belong to this world. We are covetous, he was not.

 

[Mr GLee]

.
The Watchtower Society's New World Translation renders a portion of Heb 1:8 like
this:

"God is your throne"

Whereas the Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation says this:

"The throne of you the God."

The Interlinear trumps the NWT so the conventional translation is the best; which
says:

"Your throne O God."

So I think it's safe to posit that the Lord in verse 10 is "the" Lord, and tells us that
the Word of John 1:1 should be spoken of as God spelled in upper case rather than
something less.
_

The dynamic dual the company of two. The powerful Father not seen demonstrated by the powerless Son of man Jesus, .

Three is a crowd. making room for a queen mother. .

We are the living temple of God . Christ in us. . His throne (seat of authroity) .

The Pharisees like Catholicism tried to make the throne of Moses the law giver's seat (sola scriptural) into oral tradition "I heard it through the legion of fathers grape vine. . coming from dying mankind (Pope or called a daysman )


Matthew 23:1-3King James Version23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


John 1King James Version1 In the beginning was the Word (spoken) , and the (spoken) Word (let there be) was with God, and the living Word was (of or from ) God. The (same spoken living Word ) was in the beginning with God.


God is not a dying Jewish man as King of kings