Seconds of Pre Embryonic Life of Jesus Christ?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

Right, he let them MURDER him.

Bro Benincasa, see, I told you it'd confuse him.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Sean

1 Tim3:16 does not say the highlighted(above).


It says God was revealed inside Jesus.

2 Cor 5:19 verifies that.

Source?

I will post my sources, but they do not agree with you. In fact, the earliest manuscripts of this scripture reads, "And without controversy, "HE who was manifest (appeared) in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into Glory."

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/3-16.htm


Your rendering of this scripture includes a very subtle shift in meaning, which could lead to the monumental consequences of a doctrine that is not Bible based.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

You laugh at God inside Jesus?

That is all I wanted to portray.

You'll use any excuse (ridicules or dishonest) to cover up your inability to keep up, won't you?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Sean

By you drawing a "blank" on the conception of Christ automatically puts you in the "divine implant" mode.

Thus, Jesus is not the true son of man, nor Mary's biological son.

I am drawing a blank because the Bible does not clearly explain the technicalities of whether Jesus Christ was literally formed with sperm and egg, egg and the Holy Spirit, or if the work of the Holy Spirit was to place the embryonic body of God in the flesh inside of Mary.

The Bible says Jesus Christ is of the lineage of King David and that both of his earthly parents can trace their lineage to King David.

That is all that matters really. Where the Bible is silent, why try to search something out and in the process MAKE the scriptures say something it doesn't really say?

But let's continue... tomorrow.

[Sean]

It is so easy to make wise cracks. In fact, I started to make a wise crack towards you earlier this evening but I am glad I decided against it.

How do you interpret John 1:10?

Thanks, it is fun on occasion to goof off, but not incessantly.

John 1:10.....10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

The God/Light/Word inside Jesus(they knew Jesus, but not the invisible God inside him).

What is the H/U doctrine? The Hypostatic Union? The Holy Canon comes from the Catholic Church-- should we deny that as well because God decided to use the Catholics to pass down His Holy Writ?

It is the doctrine of the "incarnation", dual nature of God, rather than God and Jesus being individuals as easily seen throughout the Bible.

The 2 person mode? John 1:1 and 1:2 establishes the Hypostatic Union and (reads to me) to suggest a Biblical foundation for both the Oneness view and Trinitarian view of God. However, I do not see these scriptures suggesting a 2-mode Jesus.

Nearly every single verse I post on this thread speaks of 2 persons(1 divine and 1 human). Any verse other's have been posting ends up to be 2 persons. If one does not want to read of 2 persons, then they need to put their Bible down.

I would like to use the scriptures to refute your position-- but not in the spirit of debate. It could be more like iron sharpening iron-- but we would need to stick to scripture, using our opinions SPARINGLY to justify our thoughts.

Sounds great. Debate is not always the answer. Sometimes passing along ideas is better. I use very little commentary(please notice).

As for the Godhead, again, what makes you think that any human being could actually fathom all that there is to God, all that makes up God? How can the creation figure out His Creator when our Creator spoke through one of His Apostles telling us that the nature of God is a great mystery? We see through a glass darkly-- not because the glass is smudged by human influence and history, but by the design of our Creator, we see through the glass darkly.

The verse you cite is in itself, revealing the mystery...."God was revealed inside Jesus". This is the consistent message of Jesus and the Apostles in the 1st century church writings, before H/U commentary swept through from the 4th century.

What I am saying is that I sincerely doubt that you could actually prove your point using scripture alone, without making some serious, serious leaps of logic.

I can engage in dialogue with you, but the Bible must be our primary source with any bible-informed opinions used sparingly.

JD, I dont attempt to prove anything. The proof is in the verses I post. It is up to H/Uists to prove the verse is not what it actually says, using mass commentary.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I am drawing a blank because the Bible does not clearly explain the technicalities of whether Jesus Christ was literally formed with sperm and egg, egg and the Holy Spirit, or if the work of the Holy Spirit was to place the embryonic body of God in the flesh inside of Mary.

The Bible says Jesus Christ is of the lineage of King David and that both of his earthly parents can trace their lineage to King David.

That is all that matters really. Where the Bible is silent, why try to search something out and in the process MAKE the scriptures say something it doesn't really say?

But let's continue... tomorrow.

Okay, but when you return.

You have one of 2 choices....


#1....Jesus was half God's and half Mary's at conception.

#2....Jesus was implanted in the womb of Mary in his fully intact "God/flesh" state and Mary was not his bio-mother.

There is no other option.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Source?

I will post my sources, but they do not agree with you. In fact, the earliest manuscripts of this scripture reads, "And without controversy, "HE who was manifest (appeared) in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into Glory."

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/3-16.htm


Your rendering of this scripture includes a very subtle shift in meaning, which could lead to the monumental consequences of a doctrine that is not Bible based.

If you stray into other versions we cannot do this. The other versions are generally modernistic and laden with H/U connotation.

Let's use the KJV, thanks.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Bro Benincasa, see, I told you it'd confuse him.

Okay, okay, he crucified himself.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Ok Sean.

If I embrace your doctrine , if I understood and embraced your revelation, would it mean that I am:

A) Saved,
B) More enlightened or even more saved than the average Apostolic,
C) More enlightened, but this knowledge does not affect or effect salvation.


If I DON'T embrace your doctrine, would it mean that I am:

A) Unsaved,
B) Barely saved or saved but ignorant of one of the Biblical truths
C) Unsaved and willfully defiant since God's Nature is revealed all around us, with me choosing to be rebellious.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

Right, he let them MURDER him.

Sean?

Does the supposed pastor at the supposed "UPCI" church you attend believe what you believe?