FW: I am tired of your non answers.
mlculwell: Well I never expected you to like my answers. But for sure they do not fit with your false doctrine and I like it that way!
FW:The poetic devise called plural majesty was not invented until the 13th century by anglo-saxon kings. There is no biblical record of such a device and no extra-scriptural support for this device in antiquity.
mlculwell:The "plural of majesty" may have been a device used in literary writings and not brought about until the 13th century but God was a king way before all other kings of His subjects the Angels....All good gifts come from above and there is nothing new under the son!
FW: You claim that man was made in the image of God by God's foreknowledge of Christ Jesus. First, let me say this; man and women were created in God's image. Jesus was a man. Therefore Jesus must have been a hermaphradite in your view. The human body is not the image of God because God at the time of creation was purley spirit. The account is of creation, the context has nothing to do with redemption. It is a historical narrative and the text does not lend itself whatsoever to your greivous view.
mlculwell: Now for your nonsense on the image! Eve was taken from the man who was created in the image of God! Did you forget that fact? Yes you did you are trying to hide in plain site! Jesus is the image of the invisible God(Col. 1:15) If he were back there as another person then he was also invisible but this simply shows me your polytheism! yes God was Spirit!(John 4:24) an invisible spirit. Saying so does not prove your ridiculous doctrine.
FW:What is a type to you? Passover was a type of the atonement. Circumsission was a type of baptism. The bronze snake in the book of Numbers was a type of Christ Crucified. The type precedes the fulfillment. Not the other way around. Adam was the federal head of fallen humanity (romans 5:12-13). Jesus was the fulfillment of that type in that He was the representitive of a new humanity. The text you keep qouting, calling it "another account of creation" has nothing to do with creation. The context is about original sin, justification, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Paul never intended your isogetical interpretation. In a phrase: ad hock.
mlculwell: I do not believe in your false doctrine of Original sin! Man does not inherit the original sin of Adam! God made man upright but he sought devices(Eccl. 7:29) (Romans 5:14) is not about original sin! Was Adam made in the image Jesus or not? Was Jesus the image of the invisible God you simply give me your false doctrine based on what you have been taught from other trinity folk but not what is taught in scripture you have nothing for your false view! That is eisogesis inserting your view in the text!
you quote me:
Mlculwell:"The scriptures do this many times and proves nothing!"
FW: Another great non answer. The text is a prophesy in Psalms and a reality in Hebrews, that was the point. It is in the past tense and the author of Hebrews said "for which of the angels did God ever SAY." Not says or was going to say.
mlculwell: You ignored the fact that it is done in prophecy many times! You are refuting your own argument using the above and do not even see it as you have your mind on pre-existence and nothing else! let's look closer shall we?(Hebrews 1:5) For unto which of the Angels said he at anytime THOU ART MY SON *THIS DAY* HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE. THE PASSAGE AGAIN REFUTES YOUR DOCTRINE!
I just saw video the other day Of James White admitting this is one of the few passages that has him scratching his head! LOL! Tell me about this day have I begotten thee? You cannot be eternal and be begotten in a day! that is contradiction of your doctrine clear and simple! it was a prophecy of the coming birth of the Messiah and not your false doctrine!
FW:"for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."
You must be suggesting that God loved an idea. I see. Science fiction anyone?
Create a genuine logical response to the oneness problem of love, and then let me know. When you get tired of your war on the scriptures repent and believe the gospel (by the way, that means faith in the Son of God not baptism).
mlculwell: The argument that you clearly missed was from (Rev. 13:8) as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. tell me about the lamb being literally slain from the foundation of the world this passage speaks as though the lamb were literally slain but was he? NO! Just like the son was not literally back there being loved by "himself" or God loving on God, which is silliness compounded! Your doctrine of mental assent is unscriptural just like your doctrine of God loving God which is polytheism. God again was both eternal life and the word of Life but he had nobody to give eternal life to.(1st. John 1:1)
3 comments:
"I do not believe in your false doctrine of Original sin!"
You have got to be joking. Unbelievable. You picked one of the most clear doctrines to deny. The doctrine is so clear that I won't even bother to argue for it. I will just say this; prove to me that original sin is not taught in the bible. I'll eat my hat if you do. In fact I'll sign over my website to you if you can prove a biblical case using proper hermanutics for the denile of original sin.
1John1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ
Theses verses clearly say that the Son was with the Father in the beginning. There is no credible scholar on the face of the planet that will argue against the fact that "the beginning" spoken of here is creation. Same with John 1.
John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Here the Son's pre-existence is clear. He is speaking as the Son of Man here, which is interchangable with the Son of God. You cannot divide Him into two persons, this would go beyond anything any text would allow, let alone the context of this passage.
John 8:58 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Here Jesus speaking as the Son identifies Himself as YHWH. Note the context, especially verse 54.
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
You said this in regards to the above verse; "his GLORY HAD TO DO WITH HIS PASSION." Your explanation is so far fetched I cannot believe it. The word for glory used here the greek is doxa. No where in the scriptures does this word mean or infer anything even close to the passion. Generally it means magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace or righteousness. Check every greek dictionary on earth. You are making up definitions now. In this text the Son is speaking to the Father about actual glory, not the passion. Apparently the passion occured independently numerous times if we go by your definition of glory, since we read this in verse 10:
John 17:10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
The Son is glorified in the elect because they are regenerate and fear God.
John 17:22-24 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world
You said this: "Actually it does "get clearer" as you look at the context further down in the passage and particularly in (verse 22) Jesus is giving them(The disciples) his glory (verse 24)" The Son's death glorified the Father becuase it was His will; "not my will but your will." The word glory in this text refers to the new birth given to the elect; eternal life via the Son's righteousness. His righteousness was imputed to the account of the believer. Therefore the sonship of the Son can be also imputed to the believer. This is why in the text in Hebrews calls the believer the brother of the Son of God.
The paramount passage that makes the pre-existence of the Son absolutley clear is the beginning of John. The apostle defines who the Word is in verses 14 and 18.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God(Theos); the only God(Monogenes Theos), who is at the Father's side, he has made him known
The two subjects identified in vs 18 are indisputably the Father and the Son. John identifies them as such; see my parenthesis. As I have stated the Monogenes Theos is directly translated as "Unique God."
Now in regards to "the Word was God;"
The proper and direct translation of the text will render the fragement "and what God was, the Word was." The term Theos is emphasised to ensure the Son's full diety made known. John could have easily used the word theios, which means godlike one. Unfortunatley for modalists like yourself, he didn't. The Word and the Theos spoken of are not identical in this text! Period.
Don't think the Son of God is eternal still? Here are some more texts that say otherwise...
Heb 7:3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.
How long? FOREVER
Hebrews 7:17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek
How long? FOREVER
Hebrews 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
There is no text that implies that Christ is the Father. The name Lord Jesus Christ or Son of God are only given to the Monogenes Theos, never the Father. Jesus' sonship didn't end at the ascension, the text says otherwise.
Yeah original sin does not exist! I am not going to waste my time on you any longer you just keep on and on your doctrine is silly and easily refuted!
I see. So instead of admitting that your scrip-torture has failed, you have choosen to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You seemed so eager to argue and debate before, what happend? Your aggressive argumentation has suddenly dwindled has it? Indeed the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword. It has judged your doctrine and found it wanting. Repent and believe the gospel.
Post a Comment