T8 vs Lightenup

This topic contains 637 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  t8 4 months, 4 weeks ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #816554
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    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??

    This makes no sense. The Word came from God and was with God, but was originally part of God. Same for truth, wisdom,  light, etc.

    A son is like his father. The son is the image of his Father.

    The Word was with God in the beginning. The Word became flesh and was called Jesus. He was born the messiah, savior, and Lord. He was the son of God at his birth in a manger. So he was the son at this point in the least.

    #816556
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    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.

    He was born the son of God in a manger. He was the Word that was with God before that. He is now back with God in the glory he had with him way before his birth as Jesus. In fact even before the cosmos.

     

    #816557
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    God > Word/Christ/Jesus/Son > Mankind.

    God is the head of all, even Christ.

    #817165
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    So, now are you saying that Jesus was not a “son” when He was the Word of the LORD in the OT? I disagree. I believe that the one who called Himself the “Word of the LORD” was the true Son and existed before creation. Later that Word who was “with” God in the beginning and “was” God,  did not consider this form “of God” something to be grasped but came in the form of flesh even as a bondservant. He gave up His glory which He had with God the Father before creation to come here to save us.

    He was not an attribute in the beginning, He was a son even back then. The Heavenly Father has a son of the same type as Himself. He was not adopted.

    Believers will never be that type of son, i.e. one that is the same type as the Heavenly Father, we are a human type.

    #817167
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    So, now are you saying that Jesus was not a “son” when He was the Word of the LORD in the OT?

    That is a desperate statement LU.

    If I said that Jesus was the truth would that nullify that he was the son of God?

    No.

    So it is if I say Jesus is something else as well.

    He can be called and be more than one thing. Pretty obvious, but I know you know that. Hence why I spoke the truth about your post being a desperate one.

    You haven’t said anything in Heaven Net so far for me to take you seriously.

    #817169
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    My comment was not desperate, it was in response to your comment here (particularly what I made bold)

    The Word was with God in the beginning. The Word became flesh and was called Jesus. He was born the messiah, savior, and Lord. He was the son of God at his birth in a manger. So he was the son at this point in the least.

    It was because you said that he was the son at that point (in the manger)” in the least,” that I see your lack of confidence in the belief that he was the son even before the manger and therefore before creation. That is why I asked if you now believe he was not a son before the manger. Those were your words, t8. OWN IT! I didn’t make it up as some desperate plot.

    #817170
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    It was because you said that he was the son at that point (in the manger)” in the least,” that I see your lack of confidence in the belief that he was the son even before the manger and therefore before creation.

    I can prove in scripture that he was born the son of God in Bethlehem. Not sure I can pull out a clear scripture that calls him the son of God before that. Although there are verses that could allude to that.

    #817171
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    But certainly do not deny it even if he was the Word. Why do people think when you say something that it automatically also means you deny something else. I think that is either silly or intentionally designed to make the opponent’s argument look a little silly. To me that is a desperate challenge and not completely an honest one.

    #817172
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    That’s my point. That is why I asked. It was a reasonable follow up question to your comment, not something that should be called ‘desperate’ by any means. Thank you for clarifying that you aren’t sure if you believe that He was a son before creation.

    #817173
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    The Word was with God in the beginning. The Word became flesh and was called Jesus. He was born the messiah, savior, and Lord. He was the son of God at his birth in a manger. So he was the son at this point in the least.

    Does this not mean to you that he was the son of God at that point and possibly earlier?

    #817174
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    I believe that he was begotten by God as the first to be with him. He was the Word that was with God and came in the flesh. His unique birth on Earth certainly qualifies him as the son of God and I think even Adam was called that.. But we are also told that One will go forth who will be ruler in Israel and who his goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.

    #817175
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    So you don’t deny that he may have been a son before creation, you just don’t think that scripture can alone, make that clear.

    I’m sure that we lack so much in reading the Bible without the understanding of the Hebrews of the day. I do believe that they had the “Word of YHVH” in mind when John wrote John 1:1. Their understanding of the “Word of YHVH” was YHVH in a perculiar way of which could be seen yet they did not die from seeing it from what we learn from the Targums. (This CAN be substantiated in the Targums, btw).

    #817176
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    t8, you asked:

    Does this not mean to you that he was the son of God at that point and possibly earlier?

    Yes, that is why I questioned you because you had in the past been claiming belief that He was the son even before creation. That comment did not have much faith behind it, just that it was “possible.”

    It is by faith in what I experienced and then heard in my ear many years ago that led me to have a strong conviction that Jesus has always been a true son and of the same type as His Father. I asked God to show me what was meant by the term  “firstborn of all creation.” The experience which followed that is why I believe so strongly today that Jesus has always been a son. I know this truth by faith. The Holy Spirit revealed this to me.

    #817177
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    you said:

    I believe that he was begotten by God as the first to be with him.

    I agree. What I have tried to explain to you recently is that he must have already existed in some manner in order to have been begotten. This is my belief…a thing has to exist before it can be begotten. Would you agree with that?

    #818429
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    I see that you have not answered my last question here dated September 8. Please answer that here so I don’t have to send you to the hot seat again. After you answer that last question above this post, you can answer this question regarding your response which I will paste here:

    My question to you was:

    Please tell me which way you understand the sonship of Jesus before He became a man:

    1. He was the same type of being as his father. For example, Joseph was the same type of being as his father, Jacob.

    2. He was a different type of being than his father. For example, an angel is a different type of being than the Father.

    3. Other, please explain.

      Your response almost 5 weeks later:  “My guess is 1.” And furthermore you said: “I believe that the son is the image of the Father. He has his nature.”   From here: http://heavennet.net/forums/topic/t8-vs-lightenup-2/#post-818428

    Since you agree that the Son is the image of the Father and that the Son has the Father’s nature, do you believe that the Son who becomes Jesus, is the only son that has the same nature as the Heavenly Father?

    Please answer those two questions.

    Thank you t8!

Viewing 15 posts - 586 through 600 (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