(Hebrews 1:8-9) is about the incarnation Michael(a blogger of trinitarin persuasion) is denying that here. It is clear the text continues in that thought and includes the son as the eternal deity because he was made YHWH. Of course the only part he sees is the YHWH so that he must have always existed as "God the son" but that is not what is being stated at all otherwise God would have fellow God's there(he does not see his inconsistency either in using the passage all the way to verse 10 as the context continues the thought from verses 8-9-10 Also we have a clear denial by Michael concerning Jesus humanity(Which is the doctrine of Antichrist) Michael contends Jesus had no real human spirit(thus it was one third God animating a dead shell) and could not have really died as a shell cannot die neither can God experience death..... Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:" Maybe you would not mind showing me where the scriptures or any writer of the NT said such a thing?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Hebrews 1:10 And,(speaking of the SON the Father says) “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: We have already went over this! (Hebrews 1:8-9) But unto the son he saith they throne oh God is forever. It says the same thing as (verse 10) and this is a continuation of the context it is dealing with his deity and is including his son-ship or humanity as God because of the incarnation not as some fictitious nonsense that you misunderstand of "god the son".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel:Psalm 102:25 (speaking of YHWH the psalmist says) Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,and the heavens are the work of your hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I also Believe Jesus is the creator because he was made the creator, as humanity had a beginning. You have proven nothing by repeating your worn-out shallow argument!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:The author of Hebrews clearly identified the SON as YHWH.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; The son Is YHWH because he was made YHWH I gave the passages that say so but I do not blame you for ignoring them everytime!
(Acts 2:36) Jesus was made both Lord and Christ.
Now the Lord is that spirit(2nd. Cor.3:17)
(John 3;34) Jesus was *given* the spirit by no measure.
Jesus was *made* the Life giving spirit.(1st.Cor.15:45-46)
"Your version of the incarnation is of a god animating a puppet body and God the son went back to the comfort of heaven not dying at all or experiencing death how does God experience death?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:God animating a puppet? That is exactly what you believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: What other real man can you name that does not have a human spirit as does your ridiculous version of Jesus does? So that you have a god puppet faking everyone out and not a real man!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:So far as the eternal Son going back to heaven, that is exactly what the text says.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: No it does not say any such thing! Your doctrine is foolishness and can be proven nonsense! You deny Jesus was a real man as you have a man with no human spirit but a hybrid Mix you simply deny it! You have a Hercules Demi god! Neither man nor god but a hybird new species.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel:He says "Father, into your hands." No, He did die and remember, the atonement was finished on the cross. Your ridiculous question "how does God experience death?" doesn't even deserve an answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Because you cannot answer it! God cannot die so you have a fake atonement also. Your doctrine is a total sham.
By man came sin ad by man came also the resurrection.(1st.Cor.15:21) God the son cannot redeem us as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer! He is not like us but a Hercules hybrid bunch of nonsense.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:As I said, you can affirm the deity in the Son but not the deity of the Son;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I can affirm both because his deity was given him by no measure(John 3:34) so that it was the deity of the son that of God the father(John 14:10) as the real son had no power of his own and could do no works or miracles as a real man(John 5:30)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:which is a denile of the deity of Jesus Christ. Oneness theology is essentially cloaked Arianism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: LOL! We are the Only ones with One God and Jesus is that One God! Arian's do not make that claim. We do deny your false polytheism and denial of Jesus real humanity having only a puppet or shell animated by deity!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:"natures do not die people die!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Who died on the cross? Was it not the Son? You contend that the Son is simply the flesh of God indwelt. Would this not be God's real human nature? You are indeed engaging in a little hipocrisy. You have to make Jesus Christ out to be two persons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I am afraid not! We do not have "two persons of God" as that is false doctrine! We do have one real man with a real human will, and One real God with a superior will and mind but it is not two persons of God, because a real man is not another person of God. That is how I know you do not believe Jesus is a real man and you only think of him in terms of your fake deity known as God the son. A man without a human spirit is no real man at all but dead(James 2:26) You have a dead body animated as a puppet by "god the sons deity spirit" and deity spirit cannot experience death or he would have already!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Natures cannot communicate. His flesh could not communicate with the indwelling deity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: LOL! Where I have said such foolishness concerning natures? I believe a real man communicated with his real God that was both indwelling him and in heaven. His real human will mind, will, and emotion communicated as a lessor human being to the deity Given him as the superior being of God it was not two human beings or two God beings but One real man and one real God all in Jesus!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:I do not contend that the dual natures of Christ were mixed. The divine nature and human nature were both real and full, and they were held by one person. Your "hybrid mix" idea has no application with me or any Trinitarian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Of course it does! that is all I get from you guys is a denial but there is no way for you to deny it as your version of Jesus denies his real humanity in not having a real human spirit the only men that do not have human spirits are dead men per 9James 2:26, and Eccl.3:21 which says all human spirits return to God at death)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Our own confesssion (Council of Chalcedon) refutes your accusation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: My Bible refutes your man-made creed! Keep your creed which is on the same level as the book of Mormon!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: The oneness position and the Trinitarian position, in regards to the hypostatic union are actually very similar (not totally). This is why Bernard said in "the oneness of God" that at some point the oneness churches may adopt Chalcedon. But let us stay on topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: This Oneness person will not adopt any creed! I could care less What Bernard adopts because I will not adopt any man-made creed that is why and how all your trinity churches fell away from the truth and accepted the false doctrine of the trinity! If Bernard does that, then he has fell into the same false doctrine the same exact way your folks did! I( do not believe he would such a stupid thing!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:"The Omni present God went to be with the omni present God"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Remember, the eternal Son emptied Himself (phil 2) prior to the incarnation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Remember, this is why I said your doctrine was polytheism? because you have God(The son) equal to God. nothing is said in that passage about two persons but rather the term God is used and you have Jesus in that passage as God equal to God(As another God) not person
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell said...
"Jesus soul was not left in hell"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Oh really? This is rich! So, are you saying that Jesus went to hell, as in the afterlife, or that He went to hell as in the place where the rich man went to?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Your ignorance is showing and has throughout this entire discussion.
"That was his human spirit that went back to God"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:So, Jesus' human spirit eh? Ridiculous. HE WAS GOD! HE DID NOT HAVE A HUMAN SPIRIT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; Here again we have a clear denial of his real humanity which is just as bad as denying his real deity(That of God the Father John 14:10, 2nd.Cor.5:19) To not have a human spirit is to deny his real humanity! You do have a fakery and God animating a shell.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Human spirits are created, His spirit was not created.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: You have the doctrine of Apollonarinism and I have dealt with you about this before, here on this blog!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:He is God and He took on human flesh. Jesus, as the Son, claimed to be God and eternal: John 8:58.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Of Course he did! But he was standing before them as a real man claiming to be the I am because of the incarnation... He never made any claim about "God the son" Ancient false prophet made that false doctrine up and you bought into it hook line and sinker you have been duped by false prophets to believe false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise PARTOOK OF THE SAME THINGS, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I use this same passage and it does not deny the incarnation but rather affirms it and there are only two scriptures that clearly tell us who incarnated the son. You do not have a single passage!
2nd Cor.5:19 God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Which God?
John 14:10 *The Father* that dwelleth *in me* he doeth the works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:
Nowhere does the scripture speak of a human spirit. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of in my life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: That is why you have no real human man and your doctrine is antichrist and the old heresy of Apollanarianism.
Michael: You make Jesus Christ out to be TWO people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I explained that above but let's go ahead and say I do! Do (I have two persons of God,) as One real man and one real God? absolutely not! I do not believe God is a person out side the person of the son anyhow! Persons die God does not! when I say the word person am I speaking of God or man? You have forced your false definition for God upon the scriptures
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: NATURES CANNOT COMMUNICATE. Is this suppost to be comedy? Am I on film? I need an Advil.You have got to be kidding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I said nothing about natures communicating! You better take that Advil.
"But it was his own eternal deity because it was given him!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:This statement is a contradiction in the most basic way. You should proof read your comments. How could something be eternal, and at the same time have a beginning? The Son is eternal: Heb 7:3, John 8:58, John 17:5, John 1:1-2 etc...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I think you better take your own advice because as you see i will contradict everything you have to say. none of the passages you submit proves anything you have to say!
John 17:5 does not prove anything for you as in verse 24 Jesus says the Apostles or disciples were about to witness the glory he had with the father (Which was his passion) Jesus was no more literally back there with the father then he was literally slain but that is what he was talking about! Read Revelation 13:8 as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
John 1:1 proves nothing for you either as that is refuted in psalm 33:6 as the word/logos came from the breath of God's mouth as his creative power the day you can make the breath of Gods mouth another person of God known as the son is the day you will have an argument from (John 1:1
20 comments:
Michael:The context of this passage is not dealing with the incarnation. Therefore your argument that the only reason the text identifies the Son as creator is bogus.
mlculwell: I see you denying it but you have not proven it! (Psalm 45:6-7) is a prophecy that deals with Jesus deity and humanity in the Incarnation that Paul quotes in (Hebrews 1:8-9) you keep repeating yourself but fail in being convincing or making anyone understand your failed argument!
I have admitted the passage speaks of Jesus as YHWH but not as your god the son nowhere is anything ever said in scripture about such a monstrosity.
Michael:Clearly Acts 13:33 identifies the context of this passage post ascension.
mlculwell: Acts 13:33 does not prove your point! If it does you need to be more clear.I also understand the phrase this day have I begotten thee as concerning the Resurrection It does not help you!
Micahel:Your argument is untenable, and clearly defeated. Why bother repeating it?
mlculwell: I feel the same way about the arguments you give! I have given arguments where you continually give the same ones I refuted already you are repeating yourself.
mlculwell:"I also Believe Jesus is the creator because he was made the creator, as humanity had a beginning. You have proven nothing by repeating your worn-out shallow argument!"
Michael:That is not what the text says. Hebrews identifies the SON as YHWH.
mlculwell: I identify the son as YHWH! He was made YHWH! Where have you refuted the passages I have given? The son is that born of Mary, deny that! You are making up a false doctrine, the term :"son" is not interchangeable with "god the son."
Just how many sons are there? You have one born and One eternal a fake who calls one part of himself daddy and the other part son in role playing mess.
Michael:The author of Hebrews did not use the name Jesus.
mlculwell: I do not care what name he used, or what title he used! Son is not an interchagable term with deity and that is exactly why the term "son" was used, to prove it had to do with the incarnation. Your version of the son is a fake as old(Eternal) as the one he calls daddy in a fakery mock relationship One part calls the other son and the other daddy that is freak show! There is no other way to describe such creepiness.
Michael:You are obviously being selective in your reading of Heb 1:10 to support your preconcieved doctrine. Of course his humanity had a beginning, but His sonship didn't, nor will it have an end.
mlculwell: His humanity is his son-ship! His humanity had a beginning and therefor had to be made the one god because his humanity had a beginning.
part 1
"(Acts 2:36) Jesus was made both Lord and Christ."
Michael:Let me ask you a question. Was the Son Lord while on the earth prior to the calvary?
mlculwell: Of Course he was! He was made Lord because of the incarnation. I was not saying anything less or otherwise.
Michael:Acts 2:33 tells us that Acts 2:36 occured after the Son's earthly ministry.
mlculwell: Jesus was made both Lord and Christ because of the incarnation and was already Given the spirit by no measure it was his already way before these passages in (John 3:34)as he was Given the spirit by no measure(That was the man, or son)
Michael:So your argument that the Son was made YHWH because of the incarnation is bogus.
mlculwell: Again you have failed I have proven my point and once more you make no sense.
Michael: Phil 2:5-8 tells us of the Son's humiliation in becoming incarnate and it tells us that He emptied Himself, thereby allowing Himself to me found in human flesh.
Mlculwell: This passage is not from the standpoint of a fictitious pre-incarnate "god the son." If it is, then it proves your doctrine is polytheism as you have God equal to God. Keep ignoring that if we were in a real debate you would look foolish for ignoring my arguments.
The Philipians 2:6 passsage is from the standpoint of the incarnation not pre-incarnation it was the man who thought it not robbery to be equal to God as he was given the spirit by no measure. But you have God equal and thinking in not robbery to be what he is which is stupid redundancy and makes no sense!
Michael: The completion of His work lead to the reinstatment of the Son's honor and glory as YHWH, although the Son never shed His divine attributes/nature.
mlculwell: Reinstatement of the sons honor???? What? What a silly doctrine! The glory he had with the Father was concerning God's redemptive plan for mankind redemption from eternity through the shed blood of his sinless son as our kinsmen redeemer. a god the son could not ever redeem mankind (You better read 1st.Cor.15:21) By man came sin and by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
"Jesus was *made* the Life giving spirit"
Michael:He was made the life giving spirit by providing a way for sinners to be reconciled to God.
Part 2
mlculwell: How can someone whom you say was already the life giving spirit(God) be made God? That is not what is being said! He was made the life giving spirit as his humanity had a beginning. God cannot be made God he already is God but since the man was not eternal he had to be made the life giving spirit as the only *begotten son* of the father Jesus was not just son and your fake "god the son" but thank God he was the only begotten which means *sired* and born! This contradicts your false doctrine. He was sired miraculously through a virgin and he was no son otherwise!
Michael:The rest of your proof texts are irrelevant and not worth the time.
mlculwell; They are as relevant as are these whom you have said without saying they were tough for you!LOL!
"To not have a human spirit is to deny his real humanity!"
Michael:Really eh?
mlculwell: Yeah really and it is why your doctrine is Antichrist!
Michael:Let me ask you then, what is the definition of a human being?
mlculwell: What would it matter what I gave? You would deny anything that does not fit your Antichrist doctrine of the trinity.I gave you (Eccl.3:12) where the spirit of man goes back to God who gave it upon death Just Like what happened with Jesus in Luke 23:46 where he said father into thy hands I commend my(human) spirit. You are denying Jesus real death for your doctrine of a puppet animating a dead body. (James 2:26) That a human spirit of a man leaves the body upon death. Nowhere do we see anything about a divine spirit leaving a puppet. Your version has Jesus simply leaving the puppet shell and going back to the comfort of heaven not experiencing death as would a real man and faking everyone out as God cannot experience death.
Michael:Does this definition include your supposed spirit? No, it doesn't. Humanity is simply the created mortal being that human beings exclusivley possess.
mlculwell: You are denying the scriptures! But you have to do that to make your doctrine work. We would not know anything if it were not for the scriptures In James 2:26 and Eccl.3:12 that tell us upon death our human spirits leave and returns to God who gave it just like when Jesus died.
part 3
Michael:Your notion is made up eisegesis. Humanity is not spiritual, but physical! It is unbelievable the extent you will go to, in an effort to cram your preconcieved doctrine into the text.
mlculwell: and I am amazed By your wrangling and the nonsense you are engaging in to try and turn your dilemma back on me when you are caught in your web of deceitful pathetic doctrine.
"Remember, this is why I said your doctrine was polytheism? because you have God(The son) equal to God."
Michael:No. Rememeber that all the fullness of the deity is in the Son; this means that the Son is fully God, and He is every thing that the Father is (distinct and unified).
mlculwell: For sure your doctrine has been proven over and over as polytheism and I am amazed you keep bringing back up Philippians 2:6 and allowing me to beat you senselessly over the head with it.
Oh and yes for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead Bodily(Col.2:9) and what was in him bodily well let's look at (John 14:10) The Father(That which makes God God) dwellth in me(Bodily as son) he doeth the works. (Because as son) I can of mine own(Son)self do nothing.
Michael;Phil 2:5-8 tells us He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. This means that He had equality, but still choose to humble Himself.
mlculwell: The deity of the of the son(God the father) was simply hid in the humbleness of a real human man as son.(No god the son nonsense)
"John 1:1 proves nothing for you either as that is refuted in psalm 33:6 as the word/logos came from the breath of God's mouth as his creative power the day you can make the breath of Gods mouth another person of God known as the son is the day you will have an argument from (John 1:1"
part4
Michael:John 1:1-2 states that the Word was with God. The phrase "with God" used is "pros ton theon" in the Greek. The word "with" is the word "pros." The word for face in the Greek is "prosopon," the root word is the word "pros."
mlculwell: "Pros" does not mean face to face in John 1:1! You stole that stupid argument from Rob Bowman who used that worn out nonsense in a debate years ago. The same Greek word is used In 1st John 1:2 where it says eternal life was with(*Pros*) the Father.
Eternal Life was not a person with God. Eternal Life only comes through the shed blood(Hebrews 9:22) But God held it and there were no men as yet to give eternal life. That is and was the glory Jesus had with the father as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world(Rev.13:8) He was not literally back there nor was he literally slain.
Michael:When John writes "the Word was with God" he is describing a face to face pre-incarnate reality that existed eternally. This is inarguable.
mlculwell: It is very arguable But you do not want anyone arguing with you. Your argument is silly and contradicts Psalm 33:6 and all of scripture.
Michael:Psalm 33:6 only hurts your case.
mlculwell: It hurts your case! By the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. The word was with God(Not as god the son) But as God's creative , Spoken power by the breath of His mouth.
Michael:The author of Hebrews identified the Son as YHWH in 1:10. And, Hebrews identifies not the Father, but the *Son* as the person who spoke and the universe was created!
mlculwell; Again, I am growing tired of you repeating yourself and not even trying to refute what I have said (You only think you have) The context of (Hebrews 1:8-10,) is clear and it is dealing with Jesus deity in the incarnation as well as his humanity the proof comes from (Psalm 45:6-7) This is before (Hebrews 1:8-10) and Paul is actually quoting from The psalm passge a prophecy of his coming incarnation. Jesus is YHWH because his humanity had a beginning and was made the LORD in the incarnation.
Michael:Heb 1:3 He (THE SON) is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his (THE SON, NOT THE FATHER'S WORD) power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
mlculwell: Of course he is the radiance of the Glory of God! In the incarnation the Only way anyone of the Apostle knew of Jesus. Because of His passion he sat down on "the right hand of God" which is a metaphor used all through out scripture which is both a place of acceptance and power concerning his glorified humanity. It has nothing to do with your False
"I see you denying it but you have not proven it! (Psalm 45:6-7) is a prophecy that deals with Jesus deity and humanity in the Incarnation that Paul quotes in (Hebrews 1:8-9)"
I have proven that this text is not dealing with the incarnation. This text is dealing with an event post resurrection. Remember Acts 13:33. Stop acting like you don't understand. If you continue to act deceitfully, I will end this conversation.
"I also understand the phrase this day have I begotten thee as concerning the Resurrection It does not help you!"
Of course it does! It proves that Heb 1:8-9 is not dealing with the incarnation- and to top it all off, you just admitted that. Unbelievable.
"Jesus was made both Lord and Christ because of the incarnation"
Acts 2:33 tells us that Acts 2:36 occurred after the Son's earthly ministry. Therefore your assertion that He was made Lord because of the incarnation is absolutely refuted. Paul identifies this occurring before Acts 2:36: "Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God." The incarnation is not in view here!
"he same Greek word is used In 1st John 1:2 where it says eternal life was with(*Pros*) the Father."
Eternal life is a metaphor for Jesus Christ. The text of 1John mimics the Apostles use of pros in John 1. The Son in 1John is named eternal life because whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. This is inarguable.
Phil 2:5-8 is not post incarnation, and there is no way for you to get around that. You call the Trinity polytheism, when in fact it is what the scripture clearly teaches. Stop denying the deity of the Son of God. If the text was post incarnation, the Son would have be incarnated twice. Give it up.
"Your argument is silly and contradicts Psalm 33:6 and all of scripture."
Did you not read what I wrote? The YHWH of Psalm 33:6 is the Son! The author of Hebrews identifies the Son as the person who spoke and the universe lept into existence. It is not the word of the Father, but the word of the Son. Read this carefully:
Heb 1:3 He (THE SON) is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his (THE SON's word, NOT THE FATHER'S WORD) power.
What about my refutation of your bogus interpretation of John 17:5? Why not post the entirety of my comments? Something to hide?
Michael said...
"John 17:5 does not prove anything for you as in verse 24 Jesus says the Apostles or disciples were about to witness the glory he had with the father (Which was his passion)"
Michael:In John 17:4 the Son says " I glorified you on earth," and in 17:5 He says " And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence." The problem with your interpretation is this: the two verses are reciprocal in nature. In addition the Son includes the phrase "in you own presence" which would prohibit your explanation of the "glory."
mlculwell: Absolutely Not, does it "prohibit my explanation," rather it affirms it! You are giving a shallow reading looking for and reading what appears to be obvious but is not I also read the same passage and could be as shallow as you are with it!
In his presence both has to do with what John wrote in Revelation 13:8 and in verse 24 as the disciples were about to witness the glory he had with the father(That is "recepricol" as you can get )
But he was neither slain back there or was he as son literally back there at all!
Michael:
The purpose of the High Priestly prayer is to intercesse for those whom He was given (verses 13-26) and to announce the near completion of His work.
mlculwell: His high priestly prayer was only in the incarnation Just Like Melchesidec who had a temporal body but was God in flesh.
Michael: The Son was obviously refering to real glory because He stated in verse 11 " And I am no longer in the world,
mlculwell: He was in the world literally when he made that statement only his deity that of God the father made him not in the world and put him in spiritual places!
Michael; but they are in the world, and I am coming to you" which indicates that this glory was to be given back to the Son in the presence with the Father or after the resurrection.
mlculwell: It was referring to the plan of redemption God had for mankind all along and it was about to come to fruition through his passion. The disciples were about to witness that glory who ever you have coaching you with your arguments is ditz!
Michael: Therefore in 17:24 the Son requested that the disciples see His glory, which means that they might also be glorified (Rom 8:30) in that they might be saved.
mlculwell: They were going to be in the same spiritual place through the Holy Ghost(Which was coming later(John 7:38-39) and would bring to their remembrance those things they saw and heard but for sure they were about to witness the glory he had with the father before the world was(Revelation 13:8) that was his death and then being raised to save mankind. he was not literally back there nor was he literally slain! There is no way for you to explain this.
Michael:Also, John 12:16 identifies the time in which the Son was glorified as post resurrection:
mlculwell; It was the culmination of all of his passion including the post resurrection(That is why Jesus said it is finished) You cannot have anything without first starting the beatings the cross the ministry his birth are all aprt of his glory. I already stated that above.Still using your isolation methods and not giving any thought to your arguments..
Michael:the time in which they remembered what the Son had spoken of and done (Luke 24:8.) which occurred after the resurrection.
mlculwell: I also made this statement above. LOL!
Michael:The phrase "disciples were about" that you used is pure eisegesis.
mlculwell: I am sorry, it is not! You have made a glossary shallow reading of John 17:5 and not have considered anything else and you end up contradicting verse 24 and then try and turn it around on me! tell me about Jesus literally being slain as lamb from the foundation of the world and John wrote this in (Revelation 13;8) he was not slain back there nor was he back there as son to be slain! In the context of the story in John 17 up to verse 24 Jesus had not been slain it says:
father ,I will that they also,whom thou hast given me, *be with me where I am*: that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me, for thou lovest me from the foundation of the world.
The disciples were to witness his death about 50 days before they received the spirit and then they would understand when the spirit would come upon them. Even thought they saw they still did not understand but his passion was the glory he had with the father the disciples witnessed and later understood.
Michael: He does not say or indicate when, but instead He indicates that the event is a certainty...
mlculwell: This will not be argued again, but I will deal with your other post when I get back from my Grandaughter's Birthday party.
mlculwell:"I see you denying it but you have not proven it! (Psalm 45:6-7) is a prophecy that deals with Jesus deity and humanity in the Incarnation that Paul quotes in (Hebrews 1:8-9)"
Michael:I have proven that this text is not dealing with the incarnation. This text is dealing with an event post resurrection.
mlculwell: No, it is not Post resurrection! You cannot have a resurrection or any of it without the passion and incarnation it is culmination of all of the above.
Michael:Remember Acts 13:33. Stop acting like you don't understand.
mlculwell: It is not a matter of "Not understanding" it is matter of you using a bogus argument. The Psalm passage quoted in Acts was a prophecy of the coming son in the incarnation who would fulfill all, including the resurrection but not limited to in that passage but rather a culmination of all things that he had to endure.
(1st Peter 2:24) by His stripes you were healed.
Michael:
If you continue to act deceitfully, I will end this conversation.
mlculwell: I do not care what you do! I have not acted deceitfully in any way, shape, or form, it is your understanding of the scriptures that is weak and causes you to think me deceitful which you have failed to prove your false doctrine, or me wrong, or deceitful, which I am not, but I think you have to say that for me exposing two of your Reformed reprobates such as Dr.White and TurretinFan who were absolutely shown to be deceiving in saying Harold Camping was Oneness or Modalist when he claimed: "God was three persons".
"I also understand the phrase this day have I begotten thee as concerning the Resurrection It does not help you!"
Michael:Of course it does!
mlculwell: No it does not help you at all!
Michael:It proves that Heb 1:8-9 is not dealing with the incarnation- and to top it all off, you just admitted that. Unbelievable.
mlculwell: It does not disprove that Hebrews 1:8-9 is dealing with the incarnation! It is clear it is because. God could not have fellows after the resurrection because nobody was resurrected nor did God have fellow God's the only way he could have fellows is when he were a man incarnated By God on the earth it was not speaking in the past tense as the original passage comes from before the Incarnation and was a prophecy of the coming incarnation in Psalm 45:6-7 you have proven yourself a fool!
Part 1
"Jesus was made both Lord and Christ because of the incarnation"
Michael: Acts 2:33 tells us that Acts 2:36 occurred after the Son's earthly ministry.
mlculwell: No it does not! They were definitely speaking after the son's earthly ministry but the son was made the Lord and Christ at the incarnation are you trying to twell me he was not the Lord and Christ on the earth?
LOL! Stop being an ignorant fool! I have had about enough of your desperation you are make all trinitarains look foolish you are not the one to defend their false doctrine.
Jesus was made the life giving spirit(1st Cor.15:45) you have no defense so you look foolish and desperate with your bad argumentation.
Jesus was given the spirit by no measure(John 3:34) In the incarnation.
Jesus was made both Lord and Christ not after his resurrection you cannot make God, God, or Lord as he already was the man was made both Lord and Christ because of the incarnation.
Michael:Therefore your assertion that He was made Lord because of the incarnation is absolutely refuted.
mlculwell: You better start refuting then as you have failed miserably so far.
Michael:Paul identifies this occurring before Acts 2:36: "Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God." The incarnation is not in view here!
mlculwell: He spoke two different things . Jesus was already the Lord and Christ and then he accomplished his ministry and finished all. You have given this no thought and are flailing.
"he same Greek word is used In 1st John 1:2 where it says eternal life was with(*Pros*) the Father."
Michael:Eternal life is a metaphor for Jesus Christ.
mlculwell: Yes, eternal life was referring to Jesus, but we are saved by his sacrifice in his humanity(1st.Cor.15:21) that was what was with the father(Revelation 13:8) Neither Jesus or anyone to whom eternal life would be given existed but it was God's to give to mankind through the sacrifice of his only *begotten* (sired and born) son(Not eternal)
Michael: The text of 1
John mimics the Apostles use of pros in John 1. The Son in 1John is named eternal life because whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. This is inarguable.
mlculwell: Everything is inarguable with you, but yet here I am arguing against your silly doctrines! Neither passage has anything to do with your false doctrines. The word/Logos was not the son and the son is not even used in that passage as Jesus is the only begotten( miraculously Sired and born) son of God(Not eternal!)
In the beginning was the son and the son was with the father and the son was the father LOL! anyway you slice it comes out just as silly. because the word was God's creative spoken power(Psalm 33:6)
Michael:Phil 2:5-8 is not post incarnation, and there is no way for you to get around that.
mlculwell: No, it is incarnational not "post incarnational" and it is not pre-incarantion either! If it were it would definitely prove your doctrine as polytheism as you would have two God's One God being equal to another. God cannot be equal to that which he is he simply is God!
Michael: You call the Trinity polytheism, when in fact it is what the scripture clearly teaches.
mlculwell: Well if that were so then it would have been talked about by at least one Apostle but none ever ever spoke of the false polytheistic doctrine not even alluded to it! We hear false prophets throughout history speak of it and you accept their false doctrine and reject scripture.
Michael:Stop denying the deity of the Son of God.
mlculwell: I(t is you that denies the deity of the son of God and inserts your false doctrine as there only two passages and you reject them!
The father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works.(John 14:10) you reject the clear passage to continue in your false doctrine.
God was in Christ (in the incarnation) reconciling the world unto himself(2nd. Cor.5:19) it did not say he became Christ after the resurrection or that God was Christ but rather God was *in* Christ.(You do know what the preposition *in* means I Hope?)
part 3
Michael:If the text was post incarnation, the Son would have be incarnated twice. Give it up.
mlculwell: LOL! The passage is in-carnational and speaking from that standpoint. Anything else is polytheism as God cannot be equal to that which he is and it was the man incarnated that thought it not robbery why would God be feeling anxious about who he was LOL! Your doctrine is stupid!
"Your argument is silly and contradicts Psalm 33:6 and all of scripture."
Michael:Did you not read what I wrote? The YHWH of Psalm 33:6 is the Son!
mlculwell: The YHWH is th deity of Jesus as son later in the incarnation but the son did not exist! I could care less what you wrote anywhere!
Michael:The author of Hebrews identifies the Son as the person who spoke and the universe lept into existence. It is not the word of the Father, but the word of the Son. Read this carefully:
mlculwell: Jesus was the creator because of the incarnation a matter of fact Paul says Jesus was not back there in (Romans 5:14)
Adam who was the figure of him that was to Come(In the incarnation) perfect man and perfect God and was the coming image Adam was created in.
(1st Cor.15:46) Paul states: How be it that was not first which was spiritual but that which was natural and afterward that whcih was spiritual again telling us about the incarnation. God was spiritual and was here already but this passage lets us know it was concerning Jesus in the incarnation.
I am done messing with you and will not allow any more of your silly arguments ass you just keep on and on in your desperation. If you want to look foolish then my suggestion is to keep posting your very bad arguments on your blog instead of bothering me with your nonsense!
Michael:
Heb 1:3 He (THE SON) is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his (THE SON's word, NOT THE FATHER'S WORD) power.
mlculwell: I totally agree with this passage but it does not state "god the son pre-existed" it is calling the son God because of the incarnation. *His nature* is the God nature of God the father. Why would the passage be redundant and say he was just like himself? Have you given this any thought at all? The son as a real man thought not robbery to be equal To God because he was a man given the spirit by no measure and was given the One Nature of God. Think about what you say one of these times?
Michael;
What about my refutation of your bogus interpretation of John 17:5? Why not post the entirety of my
comments? Something to hide?
mlculwell: I posted right before this one for you to read.
part 4
mlculwell:"He was in the world literally when he made that statement only his deity that of God the father made him not in the world and put him in spiritual places!"
Eisegesis! Name that verse! I gave a complete exegetical refutation of your supposed interpretation. My explanation consisted of scripture interpreting scripture; yours did not.
mlculwell: You think you gave an refutation Jesus was in the world as a real human man and the world was made by him(The father in me he doeth the works including the creation John 14:10 But Jesus was the creator because of the incarnation The son could no works or miracles(John 5:30)
"coaching you with your arguments is ditz!"
Michael:Whatever. You break my comments down in bits and refuse to recognize the totality of what I have said. Juvenile indeed.
mlculwell: You are being coached by someone who knows as little as you do! I break down your arguments in bites to deal with them point for point there is not trinity person anywhere that I am afraid to deal with their bad and weak arguments.
"Jesus was the creator because of the incarnation"
Michael;No. That is not what Hebrews or the Psalm said. Your nailed on that point. There is no argument to be made.
mlculwell: You are nailed on those points not me you are not giving any thought and I am tired of dealing with your weak glossary thoughtless arguments.
Michael:So far as John 1:1-2: name a place where pros is used other than John 1:1-2.
mlculwell: 1st.John 1:2 and all over the NT and it does not prove your bad argument.
Michael: Then you tell me what the word means.
mlculwell: It means just what it says in the KJB with the word or God's creative spoke power was with and could not be separate from him but for sure it was not another person face to face as two God's looking at each other through out eternity. Sounds silly to me and even worse two person staring at each other throughout eternity man your arguments are silly.
God hath made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ. Before he was crucified (Acts 2:36) that is the clear language.
That was a non-answer on "pros." You cannot defend the notion that the Word was simply in the mind of God prior to the incarnation.
mlculwell: Are you even reading my arguments? It sure does not seem like it! Your argument was a total non argument! It is silly and absurd! To people looking lovingly into each others eyes "face to face" for all eternity.LOL! God's creative spoken word was with him and could not be separated from him but for sure it was not another person as Psalm 33:6 that you ignore refutes your argument as the word from the breath of God's mouth cannot be a person period! You cannot even touch it.
Michael:Phil 2:5-8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he WAS in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made HIMSELF nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
mlculwell: This is the weakest of all trinitarain arguments they are all pretty bad but this one is blatant polytheism. I have pointed it out more times than I can count and yet you keep allowing me to beat you over the head with it. Earlier you tried to use the argument the name Jesus was not used but rather son so that that meant *pre-existence nonsense* Now you want to contradict yourself and say otherwise.
The Only begotten son is the humanity in the incarnation. The son was never ever apart from it and had a beginning and your version is nonsense and polytheism.
Michael:If the Son was in the form of God, and made Himself nothing but took the form of a servant, how then can the Word be simply a thought in the mind of God?
part1
mlculwell: The word was not simply a thought in the mind of God the word was God's creative spoken power His word/Logos and not another person! The form of God was in the incarnation with the form of a servant. Jesus was both in the incarnation the form of God was God the father in Jesus(John 14:10, 2nd Cor.5:19) I have the only passages that say so you have nothing but your tradition and weak twist to John 1:1 that contradicts (2nd. Tim .2:17 and Psalm 33:6)
Paul uses the term *logos* of two evil individuals concerning their false plans and spoken twisted words of untruth. Now why would Paul use a term that attribute only to the person of the son? that is because Paul,(In 2nd.Tim 2:17) Nor John,(In John 1:1) Nor the Psalmist(In Psalm 33:6) viewed the Logos the way you and the trinitarains have twisted it to fit your false doctrine. They used it in it's common meaning and usage and you have added a new meaning to the term twisting scripture so your false doctrine will work.
Michael: He did not count equality with God:
mlculwell: Can you imagine? God was feeling anxious about being what he was. That is total nonsense! The son in his humanity given the spirit by no measure thought it not robbery to be equal as a man not as another God? LOL! Your doctrine in this passage proves you are modern day polytheists and you cannot even see it nor do you care.
Michael:how can a thought or a plan in the mind of God count or consider anything?
part 2
mlculwell; I do not believe we are talking about "a thought or plan!" I believe this passage is incarnational. I told you that already
Michael: If you argue that this text is post incarnation, then the Son would have to be found in human form (incarnated) twice; name that verse.
mlculwell: You do not listen I am tired of dealing with you.
Michael:Clearly the Word pre-existed the incarnation as the Son, distinct from the Father. How can a thought or plan in the mind of God, out of it's own volition take the form of a servant? Or how might a thought humble itself?
mlculwell: The word from the breath of God's mouth was not another person. The passage is not pre-incarnation it is incarnation!
God is the nearest antecedent and God the father took the form of his son and made himself nothing in the incarnation you are confusing what is going back and forth in that passage between the son as the servant and nothing and the father as God in the son in the incarnation and to say otherwise especially with your view is polytheism.
part 3
Michael:After the Son's obedience even unto death on a cross, the Father highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name (phil 2:9).
mlculwell: Why could not "god the son" do it? I will tell you why. Because he did not exist the father exalted the son and gave him everything as a real limited man he had to be given all he had. But Jesus is the only God and there is no other!
Michael:Clearly this what John 17:5 is speaking of. Not only that, but the text of 17:5 is in the imperative, the Son is demanding that His glory be restored.
mlculwell: He is not demanding anything, he is making you look like a fool with your carnal, shallow, glossary, interpretation of that passage. I could take the same view I see what verse 5 says if I stopped there at verse 5 simply to prove a point as are you then I would not see anything else as do you but I do not take the same route thank God for verse 24
The disciples Jesus said; were about to witness the glory he had with the father before the world was John wrote his glory in (Revelation 13:8) as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. As I said before, he was no more back there as son, than he were literally slain back there looking lovingly into his fathers eyes, face to face LOL!
Michael:Please, reconcile Phil 2:5-9 with your trajectory, and don't skew the text with your exta-scriptural goals.
mlculwell: I have nothing to reconcile! It is you with your polytheism version of that passage... You reconcile Philippians 2:5-9 and tell us how your doctrine is not polytheism and does not have God equal to God. that equals two Gods! Keep ignoring it though I would also if I were you.
Michael:Your attitude demonstrates a cold hard pompousness.
mlculwell: Oh I see? So if I puppy down to your false polytheism doctrine then I am somehow not pompous? Please? Calvinsts are the most pompous false prophets there are. Nobody can tell you anything and you have not at all considered anything I have said.But I know your false doctrine like the back of my hand and am able to contradict it at every turn.
Michael:You seem to want to win an argument and perhaps get another notch on your belt. Do you feel manly when you crassly debate someone? Whatever happened to humility?
mlculwell: I am not interested in "getting anything on my belt." I am only interested in wiping out your false doctrine and defending the truth of the Oneness of God and his word.
part 4
It is blatantly obvious to me that you do not have ears to hear. Phil 2:5-8 identifies Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as pre-existent. It does not teach polytheism as when interpreting scripture, one must not take individual texts alone, but keep the entirety of scripture in mind. The scripture says in that passage that the Son pre-existed with the Father. You can deny that.
I'll tell you what, read my next blog post. It is just for you...
May God preform a work in your heart so that one day we might become brothers.
I cannot wait to hear what new polytheism interpretation you have?
Not only will it "be on your blog just for me" but I will take it apart on my blog just for you!
Post a Comment