In what sense is Jesus the Son of God?

[Vance]

And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world."

John 8:23

"world" (Greek kosmou) in this context means something different that "earthly things" (Greek epigeia) or "earth" (Greek gEs) in the text being discussed.

Keep in mind that Jesus is "the God of the whole earth" (Isa 54:5).

And the Devil is "the prince of this world" (Jn 14:30), and "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4).

[Vance]

There are probably rules against placing this much text into a posting, so I apologize.

Not that I am aware of, so no apology needed.

Excellent post!

[Rob Bowman]

All,

In reviewing my opening post, I think that only points #1, #4, and #7 have received significant attention, while the other seven points have been largely ignored. I note this just in case anyone might be interested in taking a look at those points.

[Vance]

2. The NT speaks of Jesus as the monogen?s Son in ways that indicate that this language applies to him before he became a human being. The incarnation of the Logos displayed the glory that he had as the monogen?s of the Father (John 1:14). You cited this verse and emphasized

[Vance]

I will gladly retract my "personal attack" in that post, if you would be so kind as to point it out. I just don't see where I attacked YOU personally.

Attack your argument, Yes, I did that.

You personally? Not at all.

Still waiting for the "personal attack" to be identified so I can properly address it.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Instead of simply apologizing for calling my statement "BS," you are trying to divert attention from your wrongdoing by quibbling over whether your language was a "personal attack." I'm not going to waste any more time responding to such childishness.

Still waiting for the "personal attack" to be identified so I can properly address it.

[Vance]

Vance,

Instead of simply apologizing for calling my statement "BS," you are trying to divert attention from your wrongdoing by quibbling over whether your language was a "personal attack." I'm not going to waste any more time responding to such childishness.

Instead of simply providing the "personal attack" (which doesn't really exist), you are trying to divert attention from the lack of a "personal attack" AND your lack of rebuttal (because you have none) by feigning victim-hood.

You could just simply apologize for making a false accusation.

[Vance]

Still waiting for the "personal attack" to be identified so I can properly address it.

[Vance]

7. According to the NT, Jesus is the only human being who existed in heaven prior to his human life. This is especially clear in the Gospel of John (e.g., 3:31; 8:58; 13:1, 3; 16:28; 17:5).

We have already been through ALL of those verses and shown clearly that they don't support your statement.

The other point of view was discussed earlier here,

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/48184-preexistance/page__view__findpost__p__1208810002

[Vance]

This is a bump for Rob.

Still waiting for the "personal attack" to be identified so I can properly address it.

[Rob Bowman]

Give it up, Vance. I'm done addressing this issue.

This is a bump for Rob.

Still waiting for the "personal attack" to be identified so I can properly address it.

[Vance]

Give it up, Vance. I'm done addressing this issue.

You haven't addressed this issue at all. I can understand why. You claimed a personal attack where NONE existed. It therefore was a FALSE claim on your part.

Your refusal to address this issue is prima facie evidence that you were in error and apparently your pride is to great to admit it.

I will not "bump" this thread again, but reserve the right to link to it in the future to show,

1) evidence of your inability to admit error when it is obvious that your are in error.

2) evidence of your habitual misrepresentation.

And with that I bid you Adieu in this thread!