Robert S a Trinitarain writes and asks the following question on the Carm boards he thinks is a fool proof argument that refutes the Oneness view because he uses scripture and the grammar, void of any meaningful context found in other passages with the grammar alone :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can you gratmmically explain what the bible means when it says 1st John 4 vs 10. Herin is love,not that we loved God but that he loved us and
sent his Son into the world that we might live through him."
Explain sent his Son.
Where was the Son before he was sent.
Who sent and who went.
Thanks Bob
The grammar is important.
And some of you wouldnt pass grade 3 grammar.
The Son was sent into the world that means he wasnt in the world before he was sent, he was somewhere eles before someone sent him.
Where was he before he was sent hint it wasnt the world.
And who sent.
And who went.
Can you awnser I know your not stupid.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
If that is not enough, then he answers himself and demeans the Oneness view like he actually has a meaningful argument, all the while ignoring other passages that deal with the same subject and explains what Jesus being *sent and him coming* actually is, which has absolutely nothing to do with pre-existence of "god the son" whatsoever.
What the trinity folk do is ; isolate the passage in a vacuum, ignoring the context and other passages and then ask us about the grammar which would prove their point devoid of anything else (Which is meaningless) without the full context and other passages that speak of the same subject. Actually Jesus being sent has to do with God providing a sacrifice of sinless flesh in his only begotten son. John also wrote (John 6:51)
Jesus is the bread which came down from heaven and the bread that came from heaven was his flesh. What the passage is telling us is that God provided Jesus flesh for us, like he provided manna in the wilderness for the children of Israel.
Then to try and prove this wrong, our trinitarian friends will turn to (John 6:62)that speaks further of His sacrificial flesh by stating what and if you shall see *the son of man*(That born of Mary in his flesh) ascend up where he was before?(They do not get it, "his flesh was not there before!" the key phrase is:* son of man* but they ignore that!)
It is impossible for the son of man to ascend up where he was before and that is the clue Jesus gave us in the sentence as the scriptures teach flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom.(In other words, Jesus flesh was provided for us from heaven) not that he literally came from there anymore than he was literally slain in eternity.(Rev.13:8,1st.Peter 1:19-20)
9 comments:
"It is impossible for the son of man to ascend up where he was before and that is the clue Jesus gave us in the sentence as the scriptures teach flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom."
Acts 1:9-11 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”
Do you forfeit the inspiration of Acts? Luke identified Jesus as ascending in the flesh to Heaven. In the same way, the Son will return; in the flesh. Or do you deny the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus?
Flesh and blood is indicative of the natural man. That is, the unregenerate. "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." Jesus is pointing out that the new birth is required. He is also indicating that His kingdom is not of this world in saying "flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom." Your theology is not at all consistent.
*Your ignorance* is boundless!
You have submitted absolutely
zero to help you but as usual
you will run off and claim you how you have done what no trinitarain has done before you (destroyed Oneness arguments) You are a legend in your own mind.
We are talking about him being sent and coming from heaven(Of course you did not understand the argument) You barely understand the scriptures and that is clear. Come back to me when you understand what I am talking about. The Both of you have Robert S are no defenders of your doctrine.
I demonstrated that your assertion is inconsistent. You stated that "it is impossible for the Son of Man to ascend up where He was before" and yet that is exactly what happened in Acts 1:9-11. So Manuel, why do you lie?
No Michael, as usual you only think you demonstrated something when you have shown yourself to be devoid of any truth.
"The son of man" is that born of Mary, You are not getting it! (As I shake my head in disbelief) the title of this post. But keep it coming. The son of man that born of Mary could not have come from where he was before! You are reading your false doctrine into the passage. How could the son man(Born of a woman ascend where he was before (it did not say god the son) nor was the passage even talking about such foolishness.
Mlculwell:"The son of man" is that born of Mary, You are
> not getting it!"
>
>Michael: Manuel, here is what you
> fail to see: The Son of Man is also the Son of God.
mlculwell: That("Son of God") is not the phrase used in the sentence is it? Son of man is (That born of Mary)language only means anything when you think you have proven your point, now you want to ignore the language
Micahel:For in
> the Son of God the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.
> You have referred back to making Jesus two persons.
>
mlculwell: You just do not get it do you? I do not have two persons of God! I have One real man(Jesus a real human being, that you deny) And one real God (the father) that gave his holy spirit to the son. Not two of the same anything if it were so then i am a person of God (That is how I know your doctrine denies that jesu is a real but rather you make him a hybrid mix.
The Son of God IS the Son of Man. They are the SAME person. Therefore, what is said of the Son of Man applies to the Son of God, and vice versa.
Tell me, if the Son of Man is simply a man, what differentiates Him from anyone else?
That is your problem and that is the very reason I say you do not believe he was a real man! You make no distinction and that is clear. That is why I say you have a hybrid mix.
Yes, he was the *son of man* according to his flesh and yes, he was *the son of God* according to his flesh, neither of which is speaking of a deity known as*(god the fictitious son.)*
The term "son of God" means he was God's only begotten son through the virgin birth,It is not a term that should mean what you apply to it, that is the reason for my emphasis, as you falsely apply that term to mean deity!
I have to get you to focus! The fact remains; the term son of man ascends up where he was before is used(For a reason God knew there would be false teachers)I believe Jesus is the only true God but you contradict and take away from God's word with your false doctrines.
By you asking the question what is the difference it shows you do not care to handle God's word carefully.
I asked you the question to point out the absurdity of your position, not because I am ignorant of what you believe. Answer it.
The difference is the *son of God* is the flesh which God sired miraculously through the virgin birth, not through sexual reproduction.
You want to talk about absurdity? You have a son as old as his daddy (Eternal) in some kind weird role plying in eternity...
on of man is that which was born of Mary.
You insert your false doctrine of an eternal son in scripture.
Jesus had two parents and he did not get half the God gene and half the man gene he was all man given the spirit by no measure (All,100% God.)
Post a Comment