It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is this something you copied?
John also tells us that the Word is personally distinct from the Father, though He is at the same time one with the Father. They are the same, eternal, and are of the same nature and essence. The Word is God as truly as is the One with whom He exists in the closest union of being and life. As Jesus said, "I and My Father are one" (John 10:30).
The oneness between the Father and the Word has to do with their complete harmony and agreement in working together—not that they constitute only one Being as the Trinitarian theory mistakenly teaches.
Sorry to disappoint you but I am not having a heart attack over this because it is not anything startling and definitely nothing new.
by locoman earlier over on the bible versions thread:
Also, to add in with the other comments, I maintain that God and Jesus co-existed before creation. They both work as one but are both separate beings. God the Father and Jesus the Son. The God that spoke to the patriachs in the Old Testament and who claimed to be "I AM WHO I AM" to Moses was Jesus. Jesus was the Creator of all things on behalf of the Father. I will make a new thread concerning all of this in case you guys start to have a heart attack over such a bold claim of 2 divine powers at work before creation. Please hold your comments for this post for my new thread AFTER I post my proof. God bless you all.
Not exactly. Jesus took on the role of Adam but actually was at a serious disadvantage, concerning the aspect of his nature which was human, because of the degeneration of the species in general, as a result of the deleterious affects of sin, not just on people, but the whole world.
The way i see it is that Jesus is a true copy of Adam but with a stronger love and stronger will for God. Jesus was tested in the same way as Adam and Eve was in the garden of Eden. Jesus was tested against the tree of knowledge in the same way.
Originally posted by Locoman8
How about the opening verse in John? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by spy66
Not exactly. Jesus took on the role of Adam but actually was at a serious disadvantage, concerning the aspect of his nature which was human, because of the degeneration of the species in general, as a result of the deleterious affects of sin, not just on people, but the whole world.
The way i see it is that Jesus is a true copy of Adam but with a stronger love and stronger will for God. Jesus was tested in the same way as Adam and Eve was in the garden of Eden. Jesus was tested against the tree of knowledge in the same way.
I think the difference had to do with knowledge. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there was something like an individual personality that was representative of a certain creative aspect of God, and it underwent some sort of transforming process, to germinate the womb of a particular woman and to not stop at that but to continue on as that germ, to ultimately become a human person; would he be tempted to do some unlawful thing in order to acquire some secret knowledge that would put him on a par with god?
I think the temptation of Jesus was to take whatever qualities that were at his disposal because of his inherent god-person relationship, to his own purposes.
What Jesus shared with pre-fallen Adam was his free will, because the nature of his incarnation circumvented the normal condition of slavery to sin that everyone else descended from Eve are subject to.
Paul says he chooses to do good but his fleshly nature prevents him from being able to put the will to do good, (which comes from a higher form of thought, derived from its interaction with God, on a spiritual level) into actual physical practice.
That does not mean we throw up our hands at our apparent inability to exercise a free will, and just indulge our baser desires. To do that is to deny the power of God for salvation and nullifies Christ's sacrifice for our forgiveness.
This is a new one to me, as an argument of the equivalency of "Jesus" with "God". It seems to me as an ambiguous statement and comes from a historian who at some point in his life had witness Paul saying this and eventually writing it down. Besides that, it may be somewhat difficult to interpret what he meant in the original language or how that was then changed to the type of language in which it was written down.
The ascription to Christ of the divine title "God" in the two next texts I believe is so clear that no comment is necessary. "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he [God] hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28) Here it is said that the church is purchased with the blood of God. Therefore Christ is called God. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all. God blessed for ever" [Rom 9:5] This verse first affirms that Christ, as to his human nature, is descended from Israel, but in antithesis to the words, According to the flesh" the Apostle says he is "over all," or the Supreme Being, and "God," who is "blessed forever." This is a clear affirmation that Christ is God, which was written to show that Jesus was not merely human.
I think this excerpt on the topic has merit to say that this Bible passage was not intended to detract from Jesus by taking away the credit for his sacrifice and the validity of his Lordship.
from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
to feed the church of God-or, "the Church of the Lord." Which of these two readings of the text is the true one, is a question which has divided the best critics. The evidence of manuscripts preponderates in favor of "THE Lord"; some of the most ancient Versions, though not all, so read; and Athanasius, the great champion of the supreme Divinity of Christ early in the fourth century, says the expression "Church of God" is unknown to the Scriptures. Which reading, then, does the internal evidence favor? As "Church of God" occurs nine times elsewhere in Paul's writings, and "Church of the Lord" nowhere, the probability, it is said, is that he used his wonted phraseology here also. But if he did, it is extremely difficult to see how so many early transcribers should have altered it into the quite unusual phrase, "Church of the Lord"; whereas, if the apostle did use this latter expression, and the historian wrote it so accordingly, it is easy to see how transcribers might, from being so accustomed to the usual phrase, write it "Church of God." On the whole, therefore, we accept the second reading as most probably the true one. But see what follows.
which he hath purchased-"made His own," "acquired."
with his own blood-"His own" is emphatic: "That glorified Lord who from the right hand of power in the heavens is gathering and ruling the Church, and by His Spirit, through human agency, hath set you over it, cannot be indifferent to its welfare in your hands, seeing He hath given for it His own most precious blood, thus making it His own by the dearest of all ties." The transcendent sacredness of the Church of Christ is thus made to rest on the dignity of its Lord and the consequent preciousness of that blood which He shed for it. And as the sacrificial atoning character of Christ's death is here plainly expressed, so His supreme dignity is implied as clearly by the second reading as it is expressed by the first. What a motive to pastoral fidelity is here furnished!
Originally posted by Locoman8
And Jesus did this. As Paul described it: "He, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his privileges as God's equal, but stripped himself of every advantage by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born a man. And, plainly seen as a human being, he humbled himself by living a life of utter obedience, to the point of death, and the death he died was the death of a common criminal" (Philippians 2:6-8, New Testament in Modern English).
Jesus could die. Jesus could experience human emotion. Jesus could feel hunger and pain. He could agonize at the prospect of pain and death. Yes, God could die. But only if He were to become a physical human being. This He did. And who was He? He was the same person He had always been, even having memories of His past eternity with the Father.