ksalzar

Jesus was tempted ..grew weary and died ..now why is that? My question is, are there any exceptions for the above quoted ..like God can be tempted if HE wanted to ..and God can die if HE wanted to ..and God can grow weary if HE wanted to ..if yes, then why does the bible say that God cannot be tempted and HE cannot die and HE cannot grow weary if there are exceptions and HE really CAN ..and if no, there are no exceptions ..then why do you say Jesus is God in the trinity and He was tempted and grew weary and died? Good questions. These little "proof texts" are not what led me away from the trinity though. Like you said, what if the text was not meant to be all inclusive and left exceptions, etc. etc. What really led me away from the trinity is the fact that all the passages which supposively prove Jesus is God, I have come to find they do not prove that. Rather I have found that one simply reads their theology into them. Good examples are the ones that I have discussed so far on this thread: Phil 2 and John 10. If you read the points I make you will see that there is good evidence to support the fact that these verses do not prove Jesus is God, as I was brought up to believe. Infact I can provide, and have provided for Phil 2, scholarly opinions which admit that very fact, that they do not prove Jesus is God. On Phil 2 I have put forward the NAB Bible footnotes which concede this fact. If you look in many Greek Lexicons under the word "form" for Phil 2 it will also concede this fact. For John 10, the great reformed man himself, John Calvin admits that John 10 cannot be used as a proof for Jesus being God. Examples could be multiplied but the points I made I feel are sufficient for the discussion. I invite you, as well as everyone else, to have an honest look at these passages as we go through them 1 by 1 with me. I sincerely hope that you all can show me Jesus is God, if that is the truth, so that I will no longer be a heretic to all my trinitarian brothers; and that way I may get my fellowship back. I also sincerely hope that you all will learn from me, if it is the truth, to better know God. -Kyle.

I don't mind answering it, but are you giving my points on the other verses thought? It seems that every time I reply my questions and points don't get answered, and then we move onto another verse/passage that I reply and answer to.

It was the "whatever" part of your reply. It implied you don't care about discussing the passage more. I have provided you with verifiable scholarly evidence to contridict your position on Phil 2. I have asked you to support your claim that John 10:30 implies a unity of essence and nature, and have given support for my claim that it only implies a unity of will and action. Could you please respond to these questions before we move onto Col? Respectfully, Kyle.

Sigh, you reply to me as if I'm your enemy. I'm sorry you feel this way. I am simply exploring the truth, and wishing to explore it with you. I was hoping we could answer each others questions concernig the verse and find out the truth of what the passage really means before we just toss out more passages. Could you answer some of my questions I put forth for you on John 10 and Phil 2 before we move onto Col. Respectfully, Kyle.

Actually I prefer this version: Why did Jesus not think equality with God a thing not to be seized. Because he wasn't equal with God, therefore unlike the first Adam he did not try to seize it. Please answer me this, how is that form can carry the definition you put forth: the essential nature of a thing as distinguished from its matter So Jesus had one essential nature, that is in the "form of God" and then took on another essential nature, that is the "form of man". So Jesus can change essential natures? Wait, I thought this was his essential nature, what kind of nature are we talking about here?

The scholars seem to disagree with you. Check out this link and click on the words themselves. StudyLight.org You will see it brings up the Greek word from which the english is translated and the definition of that word. You can research these Greek words and the definition that scholars agree on about them yourself. You will see that your understanding of the words is not supported. For the word "form" you will see when you click on it it is from the Greek word morphe, which carries the following definitions: 1. the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision 2. external appearance For the word "grasped" you will see when you click on it it is from the Greek word harpagmos, which carries the following definitions:1. the act of seizing, robbery 2. a thing seized or to be seized a) booty to deem anything a prize b) a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained Notice the distinct difference between the words actual meaning and what you put forth it means. You said it means "comprehended". Actually it means "seized", as of something that you take unlawfully. An act of robbery is the conotation it carries.

Hmm, you start by making the statement: the whole point of 'without blemish' is to convery that the redeemer must be God.' Remember the 'kinsman redeemer' concept this explains why the redeemer must be both God and man Okay, nothing about the savior needing to be God in there. Alright let's see what those 4 requirements were and if it proves the savior must be God: Okay, nothing about the savior needing to be God here: You go on to say under this point: This is your unfounded claim, but notice that it is not proven by point number 1 that the kinsmen redeemer must be a man. Your interpretation of these verses has no bearing on the redeemer needing to be both God and man. No, actually Paul's argument is that you m ust acknowledge that God, THE LORD GOD, has raised Jesus from the dead. Nothing about Jesus being God. Continuing on... Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Agreed! And what Does Jesus tell us about God the Father?John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 5:43-45a 43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. John 8:28, 40-42. 28 "...and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me." 40 "but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father - even God." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here." John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " Moving on to the second point of the kinsmen redeemer argument: Agreed, God appointed Jesus as our sacrifice. Nothing about him needing to be God here. Right I have said this already, the sacrifice needed to be sinless. Jesus did not sin. Nothing about him needing to be God here. Moreover perhaps you could answer a question for me. James 1:13 says: Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. Now Jesus was tempted, Hebrews 4:15: For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Please explain that for me. Finally the 4th point in the kinsmen redeemer argument: Hmmm, once again nothing here indicating the savior, sacrifice, must be God. Interesting, so thus far all we have shown concerning the nature of the sacrifice is that the person must be a man like us. So everyone an angel represents God in the Old Testament and people see him in the form of a man I am to conclude it is the pre-incarnate Christ? Perhaps you could give me support for this claim, as it is I see no reason to not see that this is an angel who is in the form of man. Furthermore there are many instances where angels are "worshiped" in the Old Testament, unless you are willing to conclude that everyone of these instances is Jesus in disguise(which would be hard considering there are more than one angels on some occassions), this point will not stand. Hmm, an angel. Funny that no mention of Jesus is here. More angels representing God, simple enough concept for me. Nothing about Jesus here. As a matter of fact the author of Hebrews even lays this out for us: In the former days God spoke through angels, now He has spoken to us by His Son. Yet you want me to believe all these angels were His Son? This is confussion, the author of Hebrews tells us that God spoke by angels prior to God's Son's day. The reality the angels that God spoke through in the Old Testament were God's representatives. They bore God's name. This is why they speak as if God was speaking directly. Look at the following passage: By your reasoning, Moses must also be God; for indeed it was Moses speaking the message of God to Israel the whole time. Look at this passage: This is how God spoke through the angels, His name was in them. Which lines up perfectly with how God spoke through His Son in these last days: Your redeemer points gave no reason why the savior, sacrifice, had to be God. Your angel quotes are based on the fact that those were the pre-incarnate Jesus, eventhough none of them are said to be Jesus; rather they are said to be angels.

Great post! And look at this verse closer. Hosea 1 7 Yet I will show love to the house of Judah; and I will save them-not by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and horsemen, but by the LORD their God." God said He will save them by Jehovah their God! And the LORD GOD did save them, by raising his appointed savior, a man Jesus Christ from the dead. LORD GOD appointed Jesus, a man, as our high priest and seated Jesus at His right hand.

Nonsense, it is the same person talking the whole time.

Hmm, I'm confused by your responses. I'm not sure you fully understood my post. I never said Adam was equal with God... Answer me two things please. First, what does the word "form" mean? Second, what does the word "grasped" mean? As for Hebrews 1:8 that is a quote taken from Psalm 45 which was originally applied to the king of the time, either David or Saul. So does that mean that the king of the time was also part of the Godhead?

Okay, I kindly requested that we handle this a passage at a time. What has happened is that I have got swamped with responses on all different topics, from Isaiah to Hebrews. If there were as many people holding my position as there were holding the position you all hold we could have a discussion this exhaustive this fast. As it is I am one man, so can we please pick a specific section of scripture and stick to that until we have thouroughly discussed it. -Kind Regards Kyle.

This might be the thread to do it for both of us Kyle! The fact that God gives us time to repent does not mean that He is saying we can of our own volition. This is Elihu speaking. Does he really speak for God? I did not say we were unable to choose. I said we had no free will. Man interceding for others is what we are called to do. Nevertheless our times are in His hands. You disagreed with my understanding of those accounts. You said that God hardened his heart after Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I showed you that it was God's intention from the start to harden Pharaoh and did so, Exodus 4:21. Where am I wrong in this? With respect this is wrong isn't it? Acts 4:26-28 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One. Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. Are we restricting free will to mean that we have the choice to choose God or refuse Him, to choose right or wrong? And so do I, let us continue in this attitude and I too am sure we will all benefit. Called. Just for now Called let me leave Adam out of this otherwise the post will get too long. As for free will, what is free about it. God says, "Do as I tell you or go to Hell." Where is the freedom in that? Coercion is being applied is it not. A free will choice has no threat involved otherwise it is not free. If you drop the free and leave choice then I still say we have no choice to make in and of ourselves. We are incapbale of the correct choice even when we know it is in our best interest. johnp Good stuff, I'm happy to see your replies are honest and respectfull. I think we will discuss just fine I will reply when I have some time, as for a short reply... Your responses are true blue calvinist, good fun As for you wanting me to defend my position on the Exodus account, GOOD CALL! I will give you a detailed post when I have time, I enjoy people who call you out and make you defend your position, instead of just letting it slide. I just didn't want to post a long detailed response if it was going to overwhelm. God Bless

Thank you for the compliment. I enjoy God's word and I'm sure we will all benefit from our discussions. God Bless.

Ksalzar: The acceptence by God of any form of attonement other than himself makes God arbitrary. The cost of anything must exceed the value. Since humanity is created then anything created can not exceed it's value. And even if this was possible then all the created would have to be perfect and willing to pay the ultimate price for the redemption of the lost. If you claim Christ was created then he is of no redemptive value, except for possibly 1 person, then we come to the question how does a created being impute righteousness to another. If you claim Christ as a more perfect creation then why did'nt God create all of us better so we wouldn't need to be redeemed. More questions than answers... First I would like to say Jesus came as a man just like us. He is not created more perfect than you or I. This is just what Hebrews 2 deals with: Hebrews 2:14&17 14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same th ings, that through death he might destroy the one who has the poewr of death, that is , the devil, 17 Therefore he had to be mad elike his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God. Second you are putting alot of non-biblical thoughts into this. The reality is that God saves us by Grace. Grace by definition is something you do not deserve. It seems to me that you are putting limits on God that are not biblical. The Bible is consistently clear on the sacrifice required for our salvation. It starts in Genesis with the first sin and God provides the clothing. Then through the law God reveales to us that the sacrifice must be spotless, without blemish, sinless and that this sacrifice must shed it's blood. This carries forward as a shadow of Christ. Christ is the sinless lamb. Look at the following verses: Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement. Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. This is what God has set forth as the requirement, a perfect sacrifice. Jesus was that. Furthermore: Hebrews 7:26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Jesus was all this, but notice there is nothing thus far about Jesus having to be God to be the ransom. From the beginning on the Bible does not make such a statement about the sacrifice required by God. Continuing on we also see in Hebrews that men act on other mens behalf in relation to God Hebrews 5:1-10 1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifices for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,"You are my Son, today I have begotten you"; 6as he says also in anothe rplace,"You are a pirest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him 10 being designated by God a hgih priest after the order of Melchizedek. So we see Jesus the man was appointed by God as our high priest, and since he lives forever he can make intercession on our behalf. This is just what 1 Timothy 2:5 states: 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all...

I think I will leave it here for tonight. I will discuss Phil 2 with you hopefully tomorrow. Thank you for your time and thoughtfull responses.

I am okay with moving onto Phil 2, but do you see my point on John 10? As for the responses to Psalm 49 and Hosea 11, I think we could go in circles on stuff like that all day; but I don't think those are honest looks at scripture. Sincerely -Kyle.

Though I do not think it is a valid response, I could just as easily reply that God had not sent the man Jesus Christ to redeem us yet.

Does God change then?

Perhaps you could explain your understanding of Hosea 11:9 for me trinity:

I disagree with that statement Psalm 49 7 No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him- 8 the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough- And if Jesus was Just a man, then we have no salvation! The point of that psalm is not that a man cannot be the way God chooses to reconcile men to himself, but rather that a man cannot pay the price with money or any other means on his own. But if you disagree that a man can pay for our sins you disagree with 1 Timothy 2:5-6 for this is exactly what it says:

One in essence, nature; the context does not bear this. The context is clearly potrayed as will and action. Jesus starts off saying: And closes saying: Nothing about essence or nature here. Indeed Jesus goes on to say in John 17: Again showing that it is speaking of a unity of will and action; not of essence and nature.

Well I think you are looking at a many things from the wrong angle. For instance biblical unitarian is not something that sprung up centuries after christianity started, it has been around. Could a man pay for our sins? Of course, and one did. Just as 1 Timothy states that the man Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and man. What do you mean by supreme cost? Do you mean an eternity in hell? Jesus did not pay that. Jesus paid what was required for our sins. That is a perfect obedient life pinnacled by the cross. For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. I disagree sharply, how do you come to such a conclusion?