T8 vs Lightenup

This topic contains 637 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  t8 3 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #796552
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 61
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8
    you said:

    No LU, that is what you are hoping it is.

    I am not hoping that Jesus is God the Father. What makes you think that? The Father is the true God, the Son has always been a part of that true God. Each bear the name YHWH, one as the God of gods and the other as the Lord of lords.

    I give honour to God as God, the son as the son of that God and as my Lord and messiah, and the spirit is the spirit of God. So yes I honour the Spirit because the Father is the Father of all spirits. Spirit comes from him. God is spirit.

    Please answer this: If Jesus is YHWH as the Lord of lords and you deny this, would that be honoring to Jesus or the Father? Is denying something that is true honorable in anyway?

    #797102
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 853
    • Total replies 17,389

    LU, you say God the Father, but scripture mostly says God and means the Father.

    A few times theos and elohim are applied in a different way. It is there that people try to create weird doctrines to somehow infringe on the truth that there is one true God who is exclusively the Father. People love to challenge these fundamental truths because God is on trial at the moment in the hearts of men and with the angels that fell. But others who are called the elect among men and angels stayed with him and do not argue against him. It is these that live with him eternally in love.

    #797103
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 853
    • Total replies 17,389

    If God declares that there is no one else but him as God and if Jesus agrees that the only true God is the Father, then to say otherwise is to not believe the testimony of the son, and further to lie about God himself. Those who reject God and all practicing liars have no place in the Kingdom of God.

    If I said that I was the only father of my son and husband in my family, but you told me that this was not true, but that another was also, then I would know that you were of the spirit of error. God is the God of truth, life, and love. It is Satan that creates lies and challenges God. Saying that one challenge is okay or that a lie might be okay is then to say that Satan is okay. He is not  the Father of a lie, but all lies. That includes doctrines such as a binary God or a trinue God.

    Our true father is the one who we declare by our own nature and actions. While the flesh is nothing, if we go around creating false doctrine, then that is not part of God’s Kingdom but Satan’s Kingdom. Jesus said the Pharisees were of their Father the Devil. They rejected truth for their own view on things and they also ignored the weightier things of the law such as love and mercy and argued from the letter. They missed their messiah.

    While the letter is good, it does not of itself give us life. So it brings death on its own. False doctrine is but a reflection of what is in the person’s heart by whom the doctrine came. Woe to those because of those that fall from their stumbling block. The fact that there is one God the Father is so fundamental to truth that anything that says otherwise is fundamentally wrong.

    #814258
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 61
    • Total replies 9,896

    Hi t8,

    I just read your last post. I hope you are doing well. I have read in other topics where you have tried to tell people that I believe in two Gods but that does not give the accurate FULLNESS of what I believe. Maybe if I use the word “facet” in my description, you would find it easier to understand, so here goes…

    Think about a single parent cell (I know it has been a while since Biology class).

    1.One facet is the whole single parent cell which includes the offspring cell within it. That would be the single parent cell in it’s FULLEST form. Without the offspring cell within it or begotten from it, it wouldn’t be a parent cell at all, btw.

    2.Another facet is the inner offspring cell which, in the case of #1, is just about to be begotten from the parent cell. That cell is NOT a parent cell but a part of the parent cell. The reality is that there are two cells with identical parts except one doesn’t have an offspring cell within it. That is a word picture of how two things are identical in type but unique in relationship and interdependent on each other to have that relationship.

    So, #1 could be called the Father OR both the Father AND the Son. #2 could be only called the Son. You cannot have #1 without #2. Together they represent the FULLNESS of #1. In the Bible, context will help you distinguish which facet of the fullness of God that you are referring to. Whether the contexts refer to the Father only, the Son only, or BOTH as ONE in the FULLEST sense. We realize that the Father and Son are not simple cells but are actual relational beings and although identical in type, there is not only a difference in relationship but also a difference in authority as would be natural.

    Now, regarding the Holy Spirit, I simply believe that each entity, the parent and the offspring, both have within them their own spirit and those spirits are united as one spirit while still maintaining their uniqueness. This one united spirit is within them and can extend from them to be anywhere that united spirit is directed, even within believers and even at the bottom of the sea…wherever.

    Hoping to clarify,

    LU

     

    #814287
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 853
    • Total replies 17,389

    LU, it is not that I do not understand your position, it is that I do understand it and find it at serious odds with scripture. You do not have to explain it to me. I know it already, it is very similar to the Trinity arguments I have been addressing for some years now and the same arguments I once espoused to.

    You make a lot of points which would be a lot to address, but you say you cannot have one without the other. May I remind you that the Father can exist without a son, it is just that he would not be known by that title. I still existed before I had a son and before I became a Father.

    I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.

    Whatever the above scripture is referencing, it is clear that you become a Father when you have a son.

    Can you have a son without the Father. The answer is no. Yes the son is dependant on the Father, but the Father not on the son.

    The Father is the Father of all spirits. Even the son owes all to the Father.

    The Father is the one true God. He is Jesus own God and our God. The head of Christ is God too.

    Jesus is the son. true Believers are sons and will be like Jesus.

    I will address more points later as I have to head off now.

    #814298
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 61
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    T8, you said:

    May I remind you that the Father can exist without a son

    None of your arguments have proving that the Father DID exist without a Son. Even your scripture that you put in your post. I have given you a word picture to show how it is possible that the Father and Son eternally could have co-existed and still be truly Father and Son.

    The verse you mentioned:

    I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.

    #1. We already know that the Father called Jesus His Son way before the resurrection day which that decree is referring to. So the better translation is what many of the study Bibles translate it as:

    Psalm 2:7I will tell of the decree:
    The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
    today I have begotten you. ESV

    The Son was begotten from the grave/death, and He became the Firstborn from the dead. Did you realize that is what the decree is referring to? We know that from this following passage as well as the context of Psalm 2:

    Acts 13:32And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,

    “‘You are my Son,
    today I have begotten you.’

    Must answer questions:

    Can you see that, t8? This is NOT a piece of scripture that you can successfully use to show that there was a time when the Son did not exist.

    Do you have any other verses that can prove that the Son did not eternally exist as part of the fullness of God?

     

    #814475
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 61
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8 Bump

    Interested in your reply, t8.

    #814758
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 853
    • Total replies 17,389

    LU, it should be the other way round. The burden of proof is not with me as I accept that God is the Father and Jesus is the son.

    If David was the Father of Absalom, then by implication of being a son, his Father is the root and not the branch.

    If Jesus is the son of God, then that word is used for a reason. Binities, Trinities, Quadrinities, etc are basically stating that Jesus is not a son, rather an eternal person along with another eternal person. Any inferiority or second place is opted. i.e., Jesus decided to be the son rather than the Father even though both are supposedly equal, eternal, and 100% God. Did they flip a coin as to who would be the son? According to your doctrine, did this Jesus GOD just volunteer the idea because he is such a good guy?

    Does your doctrine explain why Jesus is the son even if he is equal, eternal, infinite, and 100% God?

    Or could it be as simple as the early Fathers put it. That the Logos was begotten from God as the first work?

    Let’s be clear, adding to what is written and changing truth for a lie is evil.

    For us there is one God the Father. For others there are other gods. If you choose the latter, then that is up to you.

    #814885
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 61
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    I will answer your question but first there is a question of mine to you that you need to answer. That question is this:

    Can you see that, t8? This is NOT a piece of scripture that you can successfully use to show that there was a time when the Son did not exist.

    It is in regards to the piece of scripture that you recently used as a support to the Father becoming a father as if He was not one beforehand. For your reminder, this is what you try to use as a proof text:

    I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.

    Again…here is proof to you that you cannot use that passage to show that the Father was not a father beforehand.

    #1. We already know that the Father called Jesus His Son way before the resurrection day which is the day that decree is referring to. So the better translation is what many of the study Bibles translate it as:

    Psalm 2:7I will tell of the decree:
    The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
    today I have begotten you. ESV

    The Son was begotten from the grave/death, and He became the Firstborn from the dead. Did you realize that is what the decree is referring to? We know that from this following passage as well as the context of Psalm 2:

    Acts 13:32And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,

    “‘You are my Son,
    today I have begotten you.’

    Please acknowledge that you now realize that this passage is not one that proves that the Father was not a father beforehand before we can move on.

    #815408
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 853
    • Total replies 17,389

    Can you see that, t8? This is NOT a piece of scripture that you can successfully use to show that there was a time when the Son did not exist.

    Kathi. Jesus is called the son and this word ‘son’ has a meaning and a relationship with the word ‘father’. God is the Father and this word ‘father’ has a meaning too.

    The fact that God is the Father and Jesus is his son is easy to understand because God made us in his image and we too can be fathers/mothers and have sons/daughters. While we may not have all the intricate details about Jesus ancient origins as long as we believe that God is the Father and Jesus is the son of God, then we show that our belief has been revealed to us by God. If we do not believe this, then such a person is under the influence of the Antichrirst spirit which has pervaded most religion of men and their never-ending diverging ideas about God.

    As to when the son came to be, I do not have all the details for surely I am too young to give you an exact account. Needless to say that Jesus is the son of the eternal God, that he is the firstborn of all creation, and the one whom God sent into the world to become one of us, so we could become like him.

    He existed in the form of God, emptied himself, came in the flesh, was obedient to God and in accordance with this he also suffered and died for our sins. God raised him from the dead, and now he is seated with God at his right hand side in the glory he had with him before the cosmos. The Word that became flesh was with God in the beginning. Before that, well I can say that it is safe to say that God was there and God had in himself the Logos/Word. At what point was the Logos WITH God I cannot tell you. But I assume it was before the cosmos.

    #815722
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 61
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    Hi there my friend,

    I am going to assume that you understand the words that the Father spoke “Today I have begotten thee” refer to the day of the resurrection since you haven’t disputed this.

    I also assume that you would agree that the begettal referred to in regards to that resurrection day, was a “work” of the Father. I think that is obvious.

    I also assume that you would agree that the Son existed before that particular “work” was done, i.e. the Son existed before the resurrection day. That begettal (that work) earned the Son the title of “Firstborn from the dead.” Read carefully…in order to beget someone, that someone must already exist before the begetting. Even your own sons existed before their begetting. They existed for about 9 months before they were begotten. I assume that you agree that first your sons were conceived and months later they were begotten. Conceived is not the same word as begotten. Those are two different concepts.

    Therefore, if you believe that the begettal of the Logos, (the Son) was the “first” work of the Father and not the “second” work of the Father, the Son had to have always existed eternally in order to have been begotten as the “first” work. If he had to be made and then begotten, the begettal would be the “second” work and the act of making Him would have been the “first” work. Are you getting this??

    Furthermore, the begetting of the Son as the “first” work of the Father made the Son His “firstborn” of/over all creation which was to come.

    I trust you are following this and taking time to really think about this.

    Now in order to further explain how the Son is really a “son” even though He always existed, and not someone just designated as the son, I will use the common expression “with child.” I’m not sure this expression is used in New Zealand but if a person is “with child” that would mean that the person was pregnant, i.e. another person was inside them as their very own son or daughter.

    I believe that the Father was “with child” eternally before the cosmos and then He (the Son)  was begotten as the Father’s first work, i.e. another person was inside of the Father as a son. Two persons eternally existed; one within the other. The one within, would be the son of the other one. Regarding the Holy Spirit, they each eternally had within them their spirit and their two spirits have always been united as one because they are and always have been perfect. Eternally there has always been the Father, Son and their united Holy Spirit.

    The NT scriptures tell us that for us there is one God, the Father and one Lord-the Lord Jesus Christ. The OT tells us that YHVH is both the God of gods and the Lord of lords. The Father and Son together with their Holy Spirit are unitedly YHVH, the God of Israel.  That is why there can be a single pronoun used for them at times in scriptures and a plural pronoun used at other times. The persons of this holy unity act towards a common purpose and speak as one voice in the OT. One of the persons has always been invisible to the earthly human beings and the other person has at times appeared to the earthly human beings. Their united spirit fills the human beings that believe in Jesus as their Lord.

    Ask yourself this:

    If the Father was always “with child” before the cosmos and then at one point begat that child, wouldn’t that mean that there were two eternal persons? And if there were two eternal persons, shouldn’t both of them, together, be regarded as God to us and not just one of them?

    In summary…the Son must be eternal if His begettal was the FIRST work of God the Father and not the SECOND work of God the Father. A person’s existence is a prerequisite to the act of their begettal. The Son pre-existed His begettal. The begettal was the FIRST work not the SECOND. Therefore, He was not made before He was begotten. He eternally existed before He was begotten.

    Blessings!

    #816153
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 61
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    No response, from you? I assume that you understand that the Son must exist before He can be begotten?

    #816526
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 61
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    It has been almost a month since I posted my response to your post. Are you beginning to understand that you don’t have sufficient arguments to support your opinion that the Son wasn’t eternal in the past?

    #816550
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 853
    • Total replies 17,389

    Saying that the son was eternal in the past is basically saying he is not the son but a second eternal God with another one called the Father.

    And then you have to ask yourself why they are called Father and Son. If they are co-equal and eternal, then they are eternal friends, not Father and Son.

    Of course, I believe that Jesus is the son of God and not a co-equal and eternal partner who combined could be called the Binity. That would be ridiculous..

    Built into the meaning of ‘Father’ is ‘originator’ and built into the meaning of ‘son’ is ‘offspring’.

    It is amazing how many devilish doctrines there are out there that deny these most basic of truths that all can understand. I suppose the Devil knows that if you repeat a lie ling enough, that some people will accept it after a while. We have had centuries of these repeated lies and the world is under his sway and confused and deluded.

    In fact so good a liar is he that if it were possible, then the elect would also be deceived.

    But some will hold onto the truth because they will be sustained by the Spirit of God. That spirit is the Spirit of Truth.

    #816551
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 853
    • Total replies 17,389

    I am going to assume that you understand the words that the Father spoke “Today I have begotten thee” refer to the day of theresurrection since you haven’t disputed this.

    Do not assume this.

    The Word came from God. The Word then became flesh. Jesus was then resurrected and now has a body of which we believers will also inherit.

    There are three stages here in linear order. Of which this verse is exactly referencing I am not sure to be honest. But this changes the truth not.

Viewing 15 posts - 571 through 585 (of 638 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2017 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account