Can you explain?

[Craig]

Okay, log line, I can see that as a possibility.  However, if Jesus is God's word, that doesn't actually make him God.  What I speak isn't me, although it represents me.  

:sigh:  I'm afraid, as simple as you say this is, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it.

What is so difficult? There is many Scriptures that tell us that He was God. He isn't God any more, has not been God since He chose to become a man but He is still God manifest in the flesh and the image of the invisible God.

The infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God descended to earth, emptied himself of the omnipotence, omniscience and became finite taking upon Himself image and likeness of a man. That image and likeness of man, and His Name was to be called, Jesus.

God still remains infinite, omnipotent, omniscient even though He became flesh and dwelt amongst us. Jesus calls Him His Father because that is where Jesus came from and the Father is God, while Jesus is now a man.

Before this, there was only God. But because of this, we now have God the Father and His Son, the Man, Jesus.

NOTE: IMPORTANT DETAIL

So now, Jesus is the Christ, there is no other Christ. We aren't little Christs, there is not 'Christ Spirit' or cosmic Christ. Jesus, the man, is the Messiah, the one and only Christ. This detail is important, and if you don't have this detail you will not get it correct. It is because of this detail, there is no mistaking that Jesus was God, because Salvation only comes through the Lord and this is how God had said it would be done.

Isaiah 12:2
Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid. The LORD, the LORD [yes, this is not a typo], is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation."

Acts 4:12
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Isaiah 45:22
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The Word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

Philippians 2:10-11
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Deuteronomy 6:13
"You shall fear only the LORD your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His Name.

So either Jesus was God and became flesh and dwelt among us, or He is an impostor.

Imposter: –noun
a person who practices deception under an assumed character, identity, or name.  

[Pleroo]

 :icon_flower:  Never mind.

[Pleroo]

What is so difficult?   

Well, if this was all so easy, I guess we wouldn't be having such a lengthy discussion about it with so many differing views.   :laughing7:   Sorry, it may be simple to you, but it's not to me.   :mblush:

[Craig]

What is so difficult?   

Well, if this was all so easy, I guess we wouldn't be having such a lengthy discussion about it with so many differing views.   :laughing7:   Sorry, it may be simple to you, but it's not to me.   :mblush:

I am still trying to find out why it is so difficult to understand. This is not factitious or sarcasm, I never use those terms. I need you to tell me why this is difficult for you to understand. The only thing that prevents understanding is presupposition and presumption and I need to know what this is.

[Pleroo]

I am still trying to find out why it is so difficult to understand. This is not factitious or sarcasm, I never use those terms. I need you to tell me why this is difficult for you to understand. The only thing that prevents understanding is presupposition and presumption and I need to know what this is.

Ah, okay, sorry.  I didn't realize you were asking me to explain.

I'm not sure I have the brain power anymore tonight to try to word my difficulty differently than I did in my earlier post.  I'll give it another shot tomorrow, okay? 

[Craig]

What is so difficult?   

Well, if this was all so easy, I guess we wouldn't be having such a lengthy discussion about it with so many differing views.

Christology
the branch of theology that studies the personality, attitudes, and life of Christ. —

adoptionism
the 8th-century heretical doctrine that Christ in His human nature was the son of God only by adoption; that in His spiritual nature, however, He was truly God's son. Also adoptianism. — adoptionist, n., adj.

Arianism
a 4th-century doctrine, considered heretical by orthodox Christian-ity, that Christ was merely the noblest of men and, being of a different sub-stance, was not the son of God. Cf. heteroousianism, psilanthropism. — Arian, n., adj. — Arianistic, Arianistical, adj.

Eutychianism
Monophysitism. — Eutychian, n.
heteroousianism
a position in the 4th-century controversy over Christ's nature, asserting that He and God were of different natures; Arianism. Also spelled heterousianism. — heteroousian, n., adj.

psilanthropism
the doctrine that Christ was merely a human being. Cf. Arianism. — psilanthropist, n. — psilanthropic, adj.

Athanasianism
the teachings of Athanasius, 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, asserting that Christ is of the same substance as God; adopted by the Council of Nicea as orthodox doctrine. Also called homoousianism, homoiousianism. — Athanasian, n., adj.

autotheism
the Calvinist doctrine of the separate existence of God the Son, derived from Calvin's assertion that Christ took His person from God, but not His substance. — autotheist, n. — autotheistic, adj.

Docetism
the teaching of an early heretical sect asserting that Christ's body was not human or material, but celestial in substance. — Docetic, adj.

Dyophysitism
a 5th-century doctrine that Christ had a dual nature, the divine and the human, united perfectly in Him, but not inextricably blended. Cf. Monophysitism. — Dyophysite, n. — Dyophysitic, adj.

Dyothelitism, Dyotheletism
the doctrine that Christ had two wills, the human and the divine. Cf. Monothelitism. Also Dyothetism. — Dyothelite, Dyothelete, n.

homoiousianism
a position in the 4th-century controversy over Christ's nature, asserting that He and God were of similar, but not the same, natures; semi-Arianism. Also homoeanism. — homoiousian, n., adj.

homoousianism
a position in the 4th-century controversy over Christ's nature, asserting that He and God are of the same nature; Athanasianism. — homoousian, n., adj.

Julianism
the heretical theory of Julian, 6th-century bishop of Halicarnassus, who took the extreme Monophysite position that Christ's human nature had been subsumed in and altered by the divine. — Julianist, n.

kenoticism
the theological concept that, through His incarnation, Christ humbled or emptied Himself and became a servant for man's sake. — kenosis, kenoticist, n. — kenotic, adj.

Monophysitism
a 5th-century heresy concerning the nature of Christ, asserting that He had only a divine nature or that the human and divine made one composite nature. Cf. Dyophysitism. — Monophysite, n., adj. — Monophysitic, Monophysitical, adj.

Monothelitism, Monotheletism
a heretical position of the 7th century that Christ's human will had been superseded by the divine. Also Monothelism. — Monothelite, Monothelete, n. — Monothelitic, Monotheletic, adj.

Nestorianism
a 5th-century heresy concerning Christ's nature, asserting that the human and divine were in harmony but separate and that Mary should be considered the Mother of Christ, not of God. — Nestorian, n., adj.

Patripassianism
a heretical, monophysitic concept of the 2nd and 3rd centuries that held that, in the Crucifixion, the Father suffered equally with the Son. — Patripassian, Patripassianist, n.

Paulianism
a 3rd-century heresy concerning the nature of Christ, denying the divine by asserting that Christ was inspired by God and was not a person in the Trinity. — Paulian, Paulianist, n.

Phantasiast
a member of an early Christian sect that denied the reality of Christ's body.

Trinitarianism
the orthodox Christian belief that God exists as the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Cf. unitarianism. — trinitarian, n., adj.

Unitarianism
the doctrines of those, including the Unitarian denomination, who hold that God exists only in one person. Cf. trinitarianism. — unitarian, n.,adj.

[Pierac]

So what was Harnack decisive point: if we look at the development of christology, at how the one who proclaim the kingdom of God became a kind of heavenly being; now the intimate, mysterious personal relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and God became a theory about the divine and human natures; how the simple gospel came to be dissolved in a philosophical theory; how the monarchy of God was now threatened by the appearance of an independent heavenly Christ alongside God, we can tell the history of this christology only as a history of loss: as apostasy from its origins, as a displacing of the historical Jesus by the pre-existent Christ; as an intellectualist, speculative, cosmological alienation from the original proclamation of Jesus." 

wow.  Talk about antichrist...

Definitely different from how I've always read my Bible.  This quote seems to announce that Jesus received worship both before and after His resurrection in apparent total apostacy from the will of the Father.  Saying He was only being worshipped as anointed one doesn't work for me 'cause I'm equally as much an anointed one too 'cause I'm His joint-heir seated alongside of Him, according to Romans, 2Corinthians, Ephesians, and 1John, and I'm not entitled to worship and don't want it by any remote stretch.  Yet, I'm equally as much "Son of God" according to John 1:12, Romans, Galatians, and 1John.  Jesus is God in a special sense above every other Son of God.

Your not reading it correctly. He is not speaking of worship.  He is talking about Trinitarians creating theories, and ripping the Messiah out history and placing the Messiah in the cosmological realm pre-birth.  As the idea of a  pre-exist Jesus puts an independent heavenly Messiah alongside God.  Creating two Gods! Also important, this makes Jesus pre-existence not refer to his whole appearance, but only to a part of his essence. . Meaning what exactly  pre-existed? The Messiah is a historical person in history, key point is person! So if Jesus the Man was not with God from the beginning, what part of his essence was? Did the pre-existent Messiah have a mind/soul?

Then you have the post resurrection problem of a pre-exist Messiah, is Jesus now a man for the rest of eternity?   So pre-existence we have 2 God's and post resurrection we have One God and one fully God and fully man?

[martincisneros]

What is so difficult?   

Well, if this was all so easy, I guess we wouldn't be having such a lengthy discussion about it with so many differing views.   :laughing7:   Sorry, it may be simple to you, but it's not to me.   :mblush:

I've had to dump so much over the last 7 years that I'm willing to scrutinize this subject as well.  So much that "I thought that I knew," but my thinking is less shaped by tradition these days than by the Scriptures, but I'd have to say that I still lean towards a type of Trinitarianism that's sorta too Biblical for either Catholics or Calvinists to be comfortable with.  I do recognize "subordination" in what Romans calls the "Godhead."  Jesus said that the Father was greater than Himself, and that the Holy Spirit was submissive to everything that Jesus would say.  But I don't have a problem with referring to each as God since the Holy Spirit is the only Emmanuel of this present eon, with brief exceptions of when you run alongside of something where Jesus in His High Priestly ministry winds up manifesting as the God/Man in our midst for various purposes as we're pursuing our king/priest duties in this eon.  A High Priest is essentially useless if He's bound for an entire age to another world.  The book of Hebrews indicates that His activities as High Priest were limited while the earthly Temple was still standing, but that ended roughly 1938 years ago.  He comes and goes pretty much as He pleases, as many people with Near Death Experiences or in some Charismatic services around the world can attest, though He's not "officially" back until the New Earth.  He's the Head of the Body of Christ that's both in the heavens and in the earth.  And while this may seem to weaken my original post a few minutes ago, I don't believe that it does.  It's true that His being in all of us isn't unique to Him since we're all inside of one another.  Talk about a basis for a transdemensional conversation!  But right now, there's few subjects that I'm extremely dogmatic about while I'm still in a really long season of rechecking that everything that I believe actually lines up with the Scriptures.  This isn't one of those subjects.  All I can share is how I've understood this up until now.  It's hard for me not to believe in the pre-existance of Jesus Christ while still believing in my own from too many numerous passages and things that have come to light through my own relationship with my Lord.  Jesus pretty much prayed in John 17 to be reclothed with the glory that He had before the present world was.  And He chose us in Him before the beginning of time.  Colossians 1 says that all things were created "in Him" as though the body of the universe fit inside of His gut, in a more profound way than just having it in His heart, sympathizing with it, or feeling some mystic connection with it.

[reFORMer]

The thing I keep coming back to are the many  passages that equate the Father alone with Jehovah. That's awfully compelling evidence, to me.  It was like truly seeing for the first time that all would be alive in Christ.  The Bible flat out says it, but as an ETer, I never really saw it.  Same in this instance.  The Bible flat out says that the Father is God ... He's our God, and He's Jesus' God.  Jesus , himself, says that the Father is the only true God.  But, as a Trinitarian I never "saw" those passages before.

Isaiah (12:2) says Yahweh is become my Jesus (Yeshuah).  That the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary to cause her pregnancy makes El-Elyon the Father of Jesus.  Jesus is Yahweh.

[Craig]

Then you have the post resurrection problem of a pre-exist Messiah, is Jesus now a man for the rest of eternity?   So pre-existence we have 2 God's and post resurrection we have One God and one fully God and fully man?

There is a presumption in that rebuttal, that doesn't exist to refute but you insist on it anyways.

[Molly]

2 Surely God is my salvation;
      I will trust and not be afraid.
      The LORD, the LORD, is my strength and my song;
      he has become my salvation."

--Isa 12

"my salvation"

Y'shû‛âh

[Craig]

2 Surely God is my salvation;
      I will trust and not be afraid.
      The LORD, the LORD, is my strength and my song;
      he has become my salvation."

--Isa 12

"my salvation"

Y'shû‛âh

Now that is using definitions properly!

Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid.
The LORD, the LORD, is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation."

God, Yeshuwah, trust, awe, Jehovah, Jehovah, might, song, Yeshuwah

[Pierac]

Hi Pleroo,

The thing I keep coming back to are the many  passages that equate the Father alone with Jehovah. That's awfully compelling evidence, to me.  It was like truly seeing for the first time that all would be alive in Christ.  The Bible flat out says it, but as an ETer, I never really saw it.  Same in this instance.  The Bible flat out says that the Father is God ... He's our God, and He's Jesus' God.  Jesus , himself, says that the Father is the only true God.  But, as a Trinitarian I never "saw" those passages before.

Just what does the Old Testament teach us about who and what God is?

Psalms 110:1 is an important O.T. verse that Has God telling us His relationship to His Son.

The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Psa 110:1) A Psalm of David.

Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament.  It's importance must not be overlooked.  It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus.  Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle".  It is "the oracle of Yahweh" (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord.  There should be no capital on the word "lord."  The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse. He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God.  When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears.  Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man.  God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, in Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here.  In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says,  "O LORD, God  [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?"  In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God:  "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner."  Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord[here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni]."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states "The form Adoni ('my lord'), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai ('Lord') used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = 'my lords.'"  Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States "lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative."

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah.  Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's "lord" (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus.  Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.


Paul

[Pierac]

Then you have the post resurrection problem of a pre-exist Messiah, is Jesus now a man for the rest of eternity?   So pre-existence we have 2 God's and post resurrection we have One God and one fully God and fully man?

There is a presumption in that rebuttal, that doesn't exist to refute but you insist on it anyways.

It's more of a question than rebuttal.

[Craig]

Then you have the post resurrection problem of a pre-exist Messiah, is Jesus now a man for the rest of eternity?   So pre-existence we have 2 God's and post resurrection we have One God and one fully God and fully man?

There is a presumption in that rebuttal, that doesn't exist to refute but you insist on it anyways.

It's more of a question than rebuttal.

You used it as your rebuttal, therefore that is what it is. The issue remains, your question has no relevance since you are applying a finite logic to an infinite God, since quantity assumes God is created and not Creator therefore pre-existence does not mean multiplicity.

[reFORMer]

But, Pierac, your arguments on John 1 are confusing to me.  At one point you're saying that the Word is just a concept, an idea and does not actually refer to the person, Jesus Christ, and that Jesus is simply a man whose existance began at physical birth.   At other times, you seem to be saying the opposite ... that, yes, the Word is Jesus and that proves he can't be God because He has a beginning whose existance began at or before creation.  Could you please clarify for me exactly what it is you're saying?

Ok, If your husband and yourself had a plan (Logos, or Word) to have a baby. Your baby would be that logos in the flesh the day he or she is born. Your child would always be your logos in the flesh, but would that make your baby the actual Logos you had within you? No.

Just look at some of the definitions of Logos beyond Word.


Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a
[/b]conception[/b] or idea (New American Bible  (footnote) & Vine's Expository Dictionary).

According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:

Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.

So Jesus is the Logos in the flesh but he's not the Logos, as the Logos is an "it"


Concordant Literal Version  John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God.  All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being."

Hope this helps?
Paul

"God was the Word" (Jn 1:1)  "And the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us" (Jn 1:14)

Two paragraphs excerpted from my first post (p.155, #360) on this thread:

The Koine Greek only has one pronoun, auto, for which CLV has SAME for the keyword.  It is not masculine, feminine, or even what could be called neuter as a comparative category like German has das, die or, dien (though it is technically neuter.)  It is a blank, all occasion pronoun that refers to the nearest preceding noun, period.  It makes no difference whether the preceding noun is masculine, feminine or neuter.  (Just try arguing this with Spanish language die hards!)  In the knowledge of which, the big hubbub over exclusively "he" to honor the Holy Spirit is the sound of numerous ignorant lips flappin' in the wind.  Well, I've been there, done that too.

Jesus is both begotten and born on the one hand and created on the other.  In the Old Covenant, we are to hear God's words so as to do (Hebrew, asah) them, but the word for doing is "to construct," which is what we are doing within (while not comprehensively as what God's logos is to Him, yet bit by bit in faithfulness as He provides.)  This is also the word God uses When He says, "Let us make (asah) man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion..."  It is also written, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."  "Create" (Hebrew, bara) here is the same for all he made in the last three days of creation, having spoken into existence the first three.  Yet this Adam is called son of God. (Luke 3:38)  The Hebrew word for son ben is derived from banah, "to build."  There's so much here!

[martincisneros]

(Just try arguing this with Spanish language die hards!)

¿Qué?

[Pierac]

I want to run a quick little poll.

Is the resurrected Jesus

a. A Man

b. God

c. fully God and fully man


I'm thinking there will be a pretty equal split between B. and C. ?


Ok edit's made per Craigs request.

[Craig]

I want to run a quick little poll.

Is the resurrected Jesus

a. A Man

b. God only

c. Still fully God and fully man


I'm thinking there will be a pretty equal split between B. and C. ?

The options should be:

Is the resurrected Jesus
1. A Man
2. God
3. Fully God and Fully Man.
4. Other.

Remove the presupposition, since adding "only" and "still" is to manipulate the options to fit your presupposition rather than an honest poll.

He is 1, 2 and 3.

[Pierac]

Then you have the post resurrection problem of a pre-exist Messiah, is Jesus now a man for the rest of eternity?   So pre-existence we have 2 God's and post resurrection we have One God and one fully God and fully man?

There is a presumption in that rebuttal, that doesn't exist to refute but you insist on it anyways.

It's more of a question than rebuttal.

You used it as your rebuttal, therefore that is what it is. The issue remains, your question has no relevance since you are applying a finite logic to an infinite God, since quantity assumes God is created and not Creator therefore pre-existence does not mean multiplicity.

DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


Craig,

You never answered my question, Do you agree with this creed? I don't  remember you being much of a creed person, but do you agree with what they write?  If I remember correctly too from our previous discussions  you don't hold the "traditional" Trinity view. So what do you not agree with in this creed?  I'm pretty sure "All" denominations that confess the Trinity accept this creed. What part do you not agree, if there even is a part you don't agree?

Paul

[Molly]

The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Psa 110:1) A Psalm of David.

A couple of questions about this.

Why does David call Jesus, 'my Lord'?

Why doesn't David call Jehovah, 'my LORD'?

Does David just pay obeisance to Jesus?

Another question--Jesus uses this verse to show his pre-existence to the Pharisees, asking them how he can be both David's son and Lord.  Doesn't this ruin your idea that there is no pre-existence?

Finally, Stephen sees this literally,  causing the Pharisees to stone him (they are such pleasant people :msealed:).  This Jesus he sees is in heaven literally standing at the right hand of God.  What's Jesus doing in heaven at the throne of God?  Is he an angel now?


55But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

--Acts 7

[martincisneros]

The options should be:

1. A Man
2. God
3. Fully God and Fully Man.

Remove the presupposition, since adding "only" and "still" is to manipulate the options to fit your presupposition rather than an honest poll.

He is 1, 2 and 3.

Sometimes I've thought Craig was nit picking just a bit, but I have to agree on this one.  And wasn't the conversation for at least the last few posts about whether or not He was God Himself or just Son of God?  (I was personally concluding that He was and is both, as well as the last Adam.) Or did I completely misunderstand you, and were you attempting [to clarify] an Arian argument??  Or did the conversation go beyond that point already and I honestly missed the transition???  My attention span does that sometimes if I'm not careful.  And where I'm at, it's sneaking towards 1am.

[reFORMer]

(S #136) Adonai (masc., used exclusively of God)

(S # 113) Adon (masc., carries nuances of authority rather than ownership) frequently used with (S #3068) IEUE, eg., Ex 34:23; Jos 3:13; Isa 1:24

BOTH are used of God!

[Craig]

Craig,

You never answered my question, Do you agree with this creed? I don't  remember you being much of a creed person, but do you agree with what they write?  If I remember correctly too from our previous discussions  you don't hold the "traditional" Trinity view. So what do you not agree with in this creed?  I'm pretty sure "All" denominations that confess the Trinity accept this creed. What part do you not agree, if there even is a part you don't agree?

Paul

I hold the "traditional" view of the Nicene Creed of 325.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.  And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

Whether the Chalcedon council adopted the Nicene, or adapted the Nicene Creed. I hold to the Nicene Creed of 325, a 125 years before the Council of Chalcedon. So I won't go through the parts of the Council of Chalcedon I agree with and do not since the Nicene Creed hold precedence.

[reFORMer]

The options should be:

1. A Man
2. God
3. Fully God and Fully Man.

Remove the presupposition, since adding "only" and "still" is to manipulate the options to fit your presupposition rather than an honest poll.

He is 1, 2 and 3.

Sometimes I've thought Craig was nit picking just a bit, but I have to agree on this one.  And wasn't the conversation for at least the last few posts about whether or not He was God Himself or just Son of God?  (I was personally concluding that He was and is both, as well as the last Adam.) Or did I completely misunderstand you, and were you attempting [to clarify] an Arian argument??  Or did the conversation go beyond that point already and I honestly missed the transition???  My attention span does that sometimes if I'm not careful.  And where I'm at, it's sneaking towards 1am.

What I understand is God became human (Adam man, homo sapien), died, raised from dead as NEW man (Christ the Lord from heaven, homo novae) something God already, and is entering into Divinity, something to be finished when God becomes all in all; and that He is including us, "...members of His body, bone of His bone, flesh of His flesh," (Eph 5) something to be also finished when God is all in all.  This is a kind of over simplification.