- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jul 16
The word “heir” is a common one and, because death and inheritance are a part of every culture, it occurs in all the biblical languages. Any dictionary will show that an heir is one who inherits, succeeds or receives an estate, rank, title or office of another. By definition, you cannot be an heir if you are already the owner.
This is not a good line of argument. There is a matter of degree for one thing.
God created all people. Yet God speaks of Israel as His inheritance.
"What? Of course they are Your inheritance. You created man didn't You?" (Gen. 1:26,27)
God owns all the people He has created. But He speaks of Israel as His peculiar personal treasure.
"For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God, it is you whom Jehovah your God has chosen from among all the peoples which are upon the face of the earth to be a people for His personal treasure." (Deut. 7:6)
So you have a matter of degree in this inheriting business. But aside from that, I think it has been demonstrated that the Incarnation of God to be a God-man shows that the Creator inheritor and pass through a process in which the result is that the God-man becomes the designated Heir.
Within the Triune God there is not the jealousy, competition, and coveting typical of fallen sinful man. There are not law suits and squabbles over ownership.
The Son of God knew towards the end of His ministry before crucifixion that His Father had out all things into His hands, just before His death by crucifixion.
"Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all into his hands and that he had come forth from God and was going to God, Rose from supper and laid aside his outer garments ... and began to wash the disciples feet ..." (See John 12:3-4)
The Son after resurrection says that all authority has been given into His hands.
" All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and disciples all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ..." (Matt. 28:17b,18a)
There is utter coordination and utter cooperation within the Trinity. Superimposing the strife riddle laws of human culture since the fall of man does not always work. For the Father to put all things into the inheritance of the Son or for the Son to deliver up the kingdom afterwards to the Father, constitute no disruption of disharmony in God's being. Neither the Son nor the Father takes a loss.
No one in history ever wrote a will that said, “My heir and the inheritor of my estate is…ME!”
I think you should spend some time in prayer and contemplate what "eternal life" could really mean. I have come to the conclusion that it does not simply mean of endless duration. I think it also indicates a quality of life which is without limitation in any positive regard.
Don't forget. The first name this One is called in isaiah 9:6 is Peleh - "Wonderful". Peleh - as in -
" Such knowledge is too wonderful peleh for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it." (Psa. 139:6)
If Christ is God, then he cannot be “heir.” The only way he can be an heir is by not being the original owner.
Then with the same logic you should argue that the only way Christ could be "the First" is if Jehovah God is NOT "the First".
But the word of God say Yahweh - Jehovah God is "the First and the Last" and the Son of Man who became dead and rose is "the First and the Last" .
So God can be the owner and the Son of God be designated the Heir after His incarnation, human living, death, resurrection, exultation, and most importantly His descending as "life giving Spirit" to indwell his many "partners".
The first man Adam, as the head of the human race was made a living soul. The last Adam as the new head of a new deified humanity, of which Jesus Christ is the Head, became a "life giving Spirit" as their source and eternal life (1 Cor. 15:45).
That Christ is an “heir” is inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine, which states that Christ is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. If Christ were God, then he was part owner all along, and thus is not the “heir” at all.
This is now repetition and frankly beating a dead horse. The writer is not here to discuss my replies. But clearly Hebrews chapter one has the Son as the owner of the earth whose foundation He laid and the owner of the heavens which He stretched forth, AND the Heir in the millennial kingdom with a king's scepter.
"But of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultant joy above your partners."
And, 'You in the beginning, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands." (Heb. 1:8-10)
So through the Son of God God made the the worlds, the universe, or the ages perhaps as how you render the Greek. And in the Son as a God-man this One is appointed Heir of all things He redeemed from His creating.
That is all the time I have this morning.
When you send me off to discuss things with a third party, I wonder if you yourself fully understand what your third party is saying. You could have written much of that, as you understand it, in your own words. It would have been just as effective, if not in agreement with what I would reply.
If you, checkbaiter, JUST want to get into trading pastes back and forth, tell me. We can just trade cut and pastes. I find occasional pastes OK with mostly dialogue better.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
30 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonshipI think your argument and answer is very weak. You just keep coming back with repeated verses that have been discussed prior.The word “heir” is a common one and, because death and inheritance are a part of every culture, it occurs in all the biblical languages. Any dictionary will show that an heir is one who inherits, succeeds or receives an estate, rank, title or office of another. By definition, you cannot be an heir if you are already the owner.
This is not ...[text shortened]... me. We can just trade cut and pastes. I find occasional pastes OK with mostly dialogue better.
Yes, it may be a copy and paste, but it saves me lots of time.
Just for the record, you think God is heir of Himself by passing through a process. Kind of like money laundering?
Within the Trinity concept there is no squabble about ownership? Convenient analysis.
I think you should spend some time in prayer trying to discern how God and Jesus can be one but not one. How Jesus can honestly receive an inheritance from himself, how he prayed to himself in the garden of Gethsemane, and many other things that have been pointed out to you in the past.
I think you should take a hard look at church dogma, traditional views and honestly assess your beliefs about a three in one God.
Speaking of beating a dead horse, I will have no further discussion here with you on a triune god.
30 Jul 16
Originally posted by checkbaiterOf course you don't believe in the deity of Christ, so the trinity makes even less sense to your belief structure.
I think your argument and answer is very weak. You just keep coming back with repeated verses that have been discussed prior.
Yes, it may be a copy and paste, but it saves me lots of time.
Just for the record, you think God is heir of Himself by passing through a process. Kind of like money laundering?
Within the Trinity concept there is no squabble ...[text shortened]... eaking of beating a dead horse, I will have no further discussion here with you on a triune god.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by checkbaiter
I think your argument and answer is very weak.
Honestly, from my side of things, it looks like you are not able to deal with the points presented. Isn't that interesting ?
You just keep coming back with repeated verses that have been discussed prior.
They may have been discussed before. But it is so interesting that I am left as totally unconvinced that you're effectively rebutted these matters. I mean juggle as you will you can't seem to juggle away the Son is God, with partners, is the maker of the worlds, and is the Heir of all things.
When you come back with a "ho-hum" it only makes me think you're pretty thick there.
I mean a mouse gains a lot of mileage running on a spinning wheel in its cage. I guess it gets some exercise. But it doesn't move and doesn't get anywhere. That's kind of how I see your continued attempts to solicit anti-trinitarians teachers be your spokesman.
There are possibly some points remaining from the last cut and paste I could speak to.
I honestly don't feel you've advanced the case for denying the Son is God incarnate an inch.
Just for the record, you think God is heir of Himself by passing through a process. Kind of like money laundering?
I believe that there are two aspects to the Trinity. There is what some all "the essential Trinity" and there is the "economical Trinity". When I speak of God passing through a kind of process (for lack of a better human language word) I am speaking of the "economical Trinity" .
To make a brief explanation, you know that I am speaking of the economical process that God went through when two verses involving the word "BECAME" are used.
1.) John 1:14 - "And the Word BECAME flesh..." .
2.) First Corinthians 15:45b - "the last Adam BECAME a life giving Spirit."
These two great "BECAMSE/s" in the New Testament reveal a kind of process that the Triune God went through to accomplish His economy, His house-hold plan, His dispensation of how He will manage His household.
The Father - Son - Holy Spirit are co-eternal, co-self existing, and coinhering (living in one another). This is the essential aspect of the three-one God.
At the same time "the Word [God] BECAME flesh" and "the last Adam [Son] became a life giving Spirit". This is the "economical" steps that God passed through to accomplish His eternal plan.
Within the Trinity concept there is no squabble about ownership? Convenient analysis.
Thanks. Sometimes i wonder about it.
But the truth of no competition, no rivalry and no jealousy or fear of one-upsmanship should be clearly seen in a number of passages. The one that comes to mind first is Philippians 2:5:11
" Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus,
Who, existing in the form of God, did not cnsider being equal with God a treasure to be grasped." (vs.1,2)
Unlike Lucifer (the Anointed Cherub) who became Satan, the Son did not behave as the highest creature which God created. The entire rebellion of God's angels, demons and fallen man came about because of the competition conceived in the heart of the Daystar [Lucifer (Latin)] to usurp God's authority and glory in a way of rivalry.
In contrast God the Son -
" ... emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men; And being found in fashion as a man He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and that the death of a cross. " (vs. 7,8)
In the economical move of God to accomplish His purpose, rivalry did not exist.
Now bear with me a paste on the next verses about how God highly exalted this God-man because of His utter obedience.
This Son emptied Himself of the glorious form of being equal with God in authority. This He laid aside and another form He took in incarnation. He took on the form of a man, and obedient man.
Now let us say that the man failed to do all of the will of the Father. Let us be hypothetical for a moment. Conceivably if He was God the Son, He could reclaim the glory that He previously had. He had that right, if He is God.
But what occurred was that He did become obedient even unto death on the cross. But He did not fill Himself again with that glorious form. He refused to regain for Himself that former form. He did not cease again that which He had relinquished in His incarnation. He had emptied Himself. He refused to fill Himself again.
He let the Father the emblem of authority, exalt and re-glorify the obedient Son, the emblem of submission. He returned to His former form of divine glory as the obedient man exalted because of His utter submission. Only by way of obedience He returned. He returned not on the basis of what He was before. But He returned on the basis of His singular and perfect obedience, exalted by the emblem of authority, His Father..
" ... becoming obedient unto death, and that the death of a cross.
Therefore ... also God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, That in the name JESUS [the God-man] every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
And every tongue should openly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (vs. 9-11)
Isaiah 45:23 has every tongue swear and every knee bow to Jehovah God.
Philppians 2:10 has every tongue confess and every knee bow to this same God after the economical process He passes through.
Isaiah 44:6 has Jehovah declare He is THE "First" and THE "Last".
Revelation 1:17 has this One Who was obedient unto death on His cross, resurrected and exalted, declaring He is "the First and the Last".
I think you should spend some time in prayer trying to discern how God and Jesus can be one but not one. How Jesus can honestly receive an inheritance from himself, how he prayed to himself in the garden of Gethsemane, and many other things that have been pointed out to you in the past.
Okay. I'll do that and enjoy the Lord Jesus in doing so!
I think you should take a hard look at church dogma, traditional views and honestly assess your beliefs about a three in one God.
We're in good hands with the pure word of the Bible. Don't worry.
Speaking of beating a dead horse, I will have no further discussion here with you on a triune god.
I think you may be back. But taking a break, even a long one, is perfectly understandable. Go ahead and suspend talking with me.
Jesus is though, my Lord and my God (John 20:28) [/b]. I am with the disciple Thomas all the way, by God's mercy and grace.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
30 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonshipI think your argument and answer is very weak.
Honestly, from my side of things, it looks like you are not able to deal with the points presented. Isn't that interesting ?
You just keep coming back with repeated verses that have been discussed prior.
They may have been discussed before. But it is so interesting ...[text shortened]... d my God (John 20:28) . I am with the disciple Thomas all the way, by God's mercy and grace.[/b]
They may have been discussed before. But it is so interesting that I am left as totally unconvinced that you're effectively rebutted these matters. I mean juggle as you will you can't seem to juggle away the Son is God, with partners, is the maker of the worlds, and is the Heir of all things.
Just as I am left totally unconvinced by your rebuttal. That is why I said I have no desire to continue this unending discussion.
As I have stated before, I do not hold it against you.
Honestly, from my side of things, it looks like you are not able to deal with the points presented. Isn't that interesting ?
Sure I am, but it will not matter.
I mean a mouse gains a lot of mileage running on a spinning wheel in its cage. I guess it gets some exercise. But it doesn't move and doesn't get anywhere. That's kind of how I see your continued attempts to solicit anti-trinitarians teachers be your spokesman.
If you say so, but I have already said I cut and paste for convenience and time.
I do not enjoy typing.
Now let us say that the man failed to do all of the will of the Father. Let us be hypothetical for a moment. Conceivably if He was God the Son, He could reclaim the glory that He previously had. He had that right, if He is God.
Reclaim and inherit are two different things.
I have no idea how God can become a man and empty himself of his mind? He had to grow in wisdom, etc., just isn't logical and not something a believer can truly identify with.
Jesus is though, my Lord and my God (John 20:28) . I am with the disciple Thomas all the way, by God's mercy and grace.
I am too, as Lord and my god in the sense he is the one appointed by God his Father.
🙂
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by checkbaiter
Honestly, from my side of things, it looks like you are not able to deal with the points presented. Isn't that interesting ?
Sure I am, but it will not matter.
What I mean is that it is interesting that you say to yourself "Why doesn't this guy get it?" And I am also saying to myself "Why doesn't this guy get it?"
That's interesting, in a sad kind of way.
Reclaim and inherit are two different things.
Colosians seems to indicate each concept.
"For in Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross - through Him, whether the things on the earth or the things in heaven." (Col. 1:19,20)
God is the owner. Yet through the blood of Christ God is reconciling all things to Himself. There is reclamation here and inheriting, I think.
I have no idea how God can become a man and empty himself of his mind?
I understand this verse to mean the glorious form is what He emptied Himself of. This is because the passages suggests one thing was put aside and something else of the same kind was taken.
The form of God was set aside.
The form of a slave, an obedient man taken up.
I do not think it means He laid aside His actually BEING God. But something of the splendour and glory belonging to God He laid aside and took instead the form of a slave, still being God Himself. This is not easy to explain - the incarnation.
However, its mystery and profundity of the incarnation does not prompt me to say - "It is not in the Bible and it is not what the word of God teaches."
I am willing to confess "Checkbaiter, this is indeed very difficult for me to fully comprehend or explain." I am not willing to say "Because it is hard to explain, I dismiss it as man's faulty concept, "mere tradition," "just erroneous dogma," or "false teaching."
I will not be opting for those explanations to characterize the great mystery of God's being.
I by God's grace, am willing to die for something which is hard for me to really explain or comprehend. That's where I am.
He had to grow in wisdom, etc., just isn't logical and not something a believer can truly identify with.
I think we talked about that before.
Now, about being tired of arguing ? There is something about not getting into " perpetual wranglings of men." So I think if I stop writing to you, you can get some rest. And me too.
But I will address some readers still, about the wonderful Triune God.
Take a Selah from the debate.
Originally posted by sonshipIm with Simon Peter and the rest of the disciples all the way.
... I am with the disciple Thomas all the way, by God's mercy and grace.
Then Simon Peter answered him,
Lord, to whom shall we go?
thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that
thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
(John 6:68-69 KJV)
End of story.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 Jul 16
3 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999Apparently it was not the "End of story " for the Apostle Peter who then wrote in his epistle -
Im with Simon Peter and the rest of the disciples all the way.
Then Simon Peter answered him,
Lord, to whom shall we go?
thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that
[b]thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
(John 6:68-69 KJV)
End of story.[/b]
" ... our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:1b)
Other English versions:
English Standard Version
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle ... the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Berean Study Bible
.. the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ ...
Berean Literal Bible
... through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
New American Standard Bible
... by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Holman Christian Standard Bible
... through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
New American Standard 1977
... our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Jubilee Bible 2000
... the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
Darby Bible Translation
Simon Peter, bondman and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have received like precious faith with us through [the] righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
English Revised Version
... our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
Originally posted by sonshipWell my KJV says:
Apparently it was not the "End of story " for the Apostle Peter who then wrote in his epistle -
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, (2 Peter 1:1-2 KJV)
This passage maintains the separation of Jesus the Son of God and God His Father. So Peter is consistent.
I aspire to be like Peter ... not like doubting Thomas.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 Jul 16
3 edits
This passage maintains the separation of Jesus the Son of God and God His Father. So Peter is consistent.
I aspire to be like Peter ... not like doubting Thomas.
Praise the Lord that Thomas went from being doubting to being believing.
" Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, you have believed ..." (John 20:28,29a)
When Peter preached the first gospel message in Acts it said he stood WITH the 11. So Peter and Thomas were not individualistic but learn to stand together.
"But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke forth to them ,,, " (Acts 2:14a)
I recognize that not all English versions render the Greek there as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ". Those that do are not in any blatant grammatical error.
If you look down at verse 11 I believe you will find the same construction in the phrase "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
"For in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly and bountifully supplied to you." (2 Pet. 1:11)
"Our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (v.1)
"Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (v.11)
Originally posted by sonshipActually you are mistaken and grasping at any old passage that seems to support your doctrine.This passage maintains the separation of Jesus the Son of God and God His Father. So Peter is consistent.
I aspire to be like Peter ... not like doubting Thomas.
Praise the Lord that Thomas went from being doubting to being [b] believing.
[quote] " Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
Jesus sa ...[text shortened]... Our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (v.1)
"Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (v.11) [/b]
The righteousness of God is a separate thing from Jesus Christ and is well documented in the NT. It is the reason for God sending His Son Jesus to die so that those righteous people, worthy of eternal life can have it. That is the righteousness of God spoken of by Paul:
Rom_3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom_3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Righteousness of God and the Saviour Jesus Christ is what gives the faith, the living faith [not the dead version of faith preached by you] which saves mankind.