January 28, 2017 at 4:28 am #818558
LU, you replied to Andrew, saying: “Good post. I agree that the Son was the only born son from eternity. I believe that the Son always existed within the Father and then at one point, as the Father’s first work, the Son was begotten (brought forth) from within the Father before creation and therefore became the firstborn over all creation as all things were created through him (the Son).”
I am pleased that you say that what you think is only what YOU believe. This leaves hope that the truth may one day every borne in you.
You say that you BELIEVE that the son was always existent in The Father. Yet when I ask you to show where you get this inappropriate idea from you fail to respond.
Sure, God always had an idea (certainty prophecy) that a saviour (a Christ) would be required – after all, he created mankind to be like himself, in that mankind would have autonomy over his environment, to create, destroy, to have divine love with freedom, design, nurture, …and as flesh: to learn bit by bit the truth of the nature and limitations of the creation he resides in and finally transcend from the fleshly world to the spiritual world. At some point the free nature would likely lead to negative behaviour. God hoped that in that freedom man would respect him as Father and refrain from the disaster and that at least one of man would hold to the truth and lead the rest back to him as Father.
You can see this theme is the nations of the world. God took out of them one ‘Son’ for himself: the Israelites.
The Israelites (Gods chosen people – eventually called ‘Jew’s) were meant to learn all truth about God and then lead all the other nations back to him.
Similarly, god chose one man from among mankind to lead the people back to him: Prophesied in MOSES leading the Israelites out if Egypt : ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son (that is: Israel!)’
LU, I think you are confusing the Prophecy of God that ‘his son’ would save the world. The reality is that it would take someone of mankind who showed himself to be a true son beholding to God to save the world from the son of Adam. God saw that because all men were afflicted by the sin of Adam, not even Abraham, Moses, David or Solomon, in their own greatness could adequately fulfil that role, ‘No, not one!’. God wrong back to basics starting with a MAN who was LIKE ADAM: Sinless and fully holy – as Adam in the day of his creation. God saw the vessel to carry this new Adam, a virgin with purity: Mary. But as Adam was created from the dust of the earth, new Adam was created in the egg of her. The egg is the body material – akin to the dust of the earth:
p.s. ‘DUST OF THE EARTH’ just means ‘Chemical Elements’…Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Mercury….. Moses, who wrote the first books, did not know about exact chemical elements nor had the chemistry or physics and biology degrees to explain it to first millenium Hebrews!!
It is the sperm of the man that gives LIFE (Spirit) to the body created from the dust of the egg. Why then does a woman flush her eggs each month but a man ‘re-absorbs’ sperm that is unused (..fact!!). Why is it abhorrent for a man to ‘spill his seed (sperm) on the ground’?
So, LU, Jesus was created …JUST LIKE ADAM. Created TO BE the Son, the Christ. But to BE the Son he would have to PROVE HIMSELF. … In your scenario jesushad NOTHING to prove if he was ALREADY (as YOU say) a living offspring of GOD – GOD HIMSELF, indeed.
Lu, Jesus was GOD HIMSELF??? And GOD IS: The Father.., so Jesus is the Father? LU, this is rhetorical?
Your summary: The Father is God who incubated a God who is the same God as the Father. The son was always living in the Father but was not God because God is all power and authority and the son could not be if he was incubated. Suddenly Jesus was sprung from God (Sounds like Greek mythology) and became God because he was now living (although he had ALWAYS been living!!!). Jesus came down as spirit into the body of the egg of Mary to become man (although GOD CANNOT BECOME because GOD ALWAYS IS) but despite being MAN he was also GOD in disguise….!
Lu, so far oh agent read your ideas on anything more but it must be intriguing to hear what you say about GOD saying to him: ‘This day I have begotten you as a son and you have begotten me as a Father’. And, how Jesus, who IS GOD, you say, acquires FROM GOD, the things he ALREADY OWN (as God). How GOD dies (please don’t tell me anymore nonsense about ‘it was his flesh alone that died’) and was raised again from the dead and RAISED UP in glory to a HIGHER POSITION ….NEXT TO GOD!!!
Now, ‘next to God’… The RIGHT HAND OF GOD, in fact. LU, the ‘right hand’ of a King, is an HONORARY POSITION. It does not make that person ‘KING’ because he occupies that position – at the PLEASURE of the King who say, ‘In you I am well pleased’, and has poured on his head the oil of gladness (an anointment: by man, symbolically, a special secret oil mixture. By God, the Holy Spirit).
Lu, how is the Son equal to the King (God) if the son is only in an honorary position NEXT TO God / King?
Lu, ‘NEXT TO’ is not ‘EQUAL TO’.
Next to the King is the king’s son. Is that son then the KING as his Father is KING… What if there are more than one sons, are they ALL KINGS?
Please answer these questions. They look many but in fact are ONE AND THE SAME….!
Essentially, given the above: Is a Son EQUAL to his father and IS the Father equal TO his Son? And WHERE does scriptures say this (Not what it says in John !!! alone – this is trinitarian addition. Test the spirit of the word by finding THREE EXAMPLES (two others!)January 30, 2017 at 10:46 am #818580January 30, 2017 at 3:23 pm #818582AndrewADParticipant
- Topics started 1
- Total replies 765
“(Not what it says in John !!! alone – this is trinitarian addition” Surely you’re not saying St.John is trinitarian addition are you? If not for the gospel of John the trinity doctrine may not have come about for it more than any other testifies to Jesus divine status as God.Paul and the other gospels show Jesus as a divine son but don’t identify him as God as much or in the same way as John. It is all quite confusing and the trinity or originally more like binity-Nicea,was an attempt to simplify it and keep God’s unity.January 30, 2017 at 5:19 pm #818584
Yes, Andrew, the gospel of John is highly suspicious as you point out.February 3, 2017 at 4:23 pm #818598
LU, you said:
“Perhaps you are quoting from one of these verses which is technically not translated like you wrote it according to the original language.
Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’
Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”;
The Begetting which is referred to in the above verses is the event when the Father raised up the Son from the grave; a fulfillment of a promise made to the ancient Israelites. This made Him the Firstborn from the dead. This did not make Him the Firstborn over all creation…that was the begetting which took place before creation.
God the Father already had witnessed to the fact that Jesus/Yeshua was His Son during His ministry before He died. See here for example:
2 Peter 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Lu, the verse I am referring to is ‘Hebrews 1:5’.February 4, 2017 at 11:49 pm #818605AndrewADParticipant
- Topics started 1
- Total replies 765
“Yes, Andrew, the gospel of John is highly suspicious as you point out.” But my point is that the gospel of John was around before the trinity doctrine and without it the trinity doctrine may not have come to be,so it can’t be said John is trinitarian addition,if that was what you were saying.February 6, 2017 at 3:08 pm #818613
I understood what you were saying about the gospel of John. When I read Jael’s response to what you said, I didn’t understand how his response lined up with what you wrote. I figured that he just did not clearly comprehended your post.February 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm #818614
Please post your questions and responses to my answers here so our discussion has some continuity: http://heavennet.net/forums/topic/lightenupjael-discussion/#post-818593February 6, 2017 at 4:33 pm #818616
LU, please address the post question in this thread.
I am not after a one on one debate with you – I posted this thread as an open discussion.February 11, 2017 at 4:30 pm #818652
I do not want a debate with you either and I did not invite you to a debate. I invited you to a one on one discussion so that our questions and answers would be easier to follow for me. You have a lot of questions in your posts. I will take them one at a time. It is easier for me to keep track in that thread that I made for a one on one discussion. You can participate in it or not but I have several of your questions that I will attempt to answer there. I don’t mean to be obstinate, really. I easily get bogged down when barraged with so many questions at once. This is too important of a topic to take carelessly.
I will further address Hebrews 1:5 there.
Thanks!February 12, 2017 at 4:41 pm #818659
Hello, I will answer this question of yours to me, in our discussion thread, next:
You say that you BELIEVE that the son was always existent in The Father. Yet when I ask you to show where you get this inappropriate idea from you fail to respond.February 13, 2017 at 5:48 am #818662
Lu, I do not require a one-on-one discussion on the issue raised.
Can you just add your opinion here instead of moving off this thread. After all, the thread is about the fallacy of the son being equal to the Father – it is not about your unsubstantiated (and frankly, fantastically self made ideology) concerning the son being incubated by the Father and therefore somehow being the same and equal to him who incubated him…
Lu, add a summary if you like but the thread is as the opening statement and line of discussion goes.
In fact, answer this: Is the FATHER equal to the SON?
Further, is the HOLY SPIRIT equal to the SON…?
What purpose is there to THREE entities that are completely EQUAL to each other?
And if they even were to perform different FUNCTIONS would that not mean EACH other then are unable to perform that different function?
Or else why can’t ONE SINGLE ENTITY which, after all, has ALL THE POWER AND AUTHORITY required, perform ALL THE FUNCTIONS?
Consider that even PAGAN DEITIES are GODS (by their own belief system) and are therefore COMPLETELY EQUAL to each other (by the trinitarian belief system).
And PLEASE do not bring any old pointless trinitarian arguments about pagan gods not being REAL GODS… To pagans, the Christian God is NOT A REAL GOD… The arguments cancel each other out.February 13, 2017 at 3:08 pm #818665
I will respond to you here if you ask one question at a time, ok? I will answer this question of yours:
Is the FATHER equal to the SON?
They are equal in essence. You are also equal in essence to your father. They are two distinct persons. You and your father are two distinct persons. The Father has authority over the Son. Your father has/had authority over you, yet you are equal in essence. What you father is in essence, you are also that same thing in essence. Likewise, what the Father is in essence, the Son is the same thing in essence. The difference between the Father and the Son is this: the Son was inside the Father as an offspring. He had no beginning but was always within the Father until He was begotten from the Father before creation.
1 John 1:1What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
You say that this understanding is unique to me, really. Andrew set you straight on that. Most people who call themselves Christian confess that Jesus is eternal in the past like the Father and that He is a true Son begotten of the Father, i.e., the Father’s offspring.February 14, 2017 at 4:50 am #818666
LU, you seem to have realised the essential fallacy in your (and the trinity) ideology, namely that The Father is MOT Equal to The Son…
Yes, when I ask this question from trinitarians I INVARIABLY get no answer because they realise they cannot say that GOD ALMIGHTY is equal to Jesus Christ. If you notice from ALL WRITINGS IN DEFENCE of equality of the three that NONE EVER qualifies the Father as being equal to the son (nor the holt spirit) – they only ever claim that the Son is equal to the Father…
Why? Because it is not a THEOLOGICAL claim… It is a TRINITARIAN CLAIM OF A (supposed) JEWISH CLAIM …there is absolutely no reference to a son being equal in any text, verse, research or otherwise anywhere in the history of the Jewish nation. So the question is: ‘Where and how did the Jews comes to make this claim where it is made in the gospel of John?
And you are wrong about your claims of Jesus being incubated in almighty God: the Father. The verses you cite are not implying that Jesus was in God and then manifested in flesh. The scriptures tells us that God knew there would be a need for a saviour for mankind: ANYONE WHO DESIGNS A SYSYEM MUST PREPARE FOR A RESOLUTION TO PROBLEMS IN THAT SYSTEM. God prepared our system for OPEN OPERATION…he gave us autonomy and authority over it… He did not restrict us over it so ANYTHING was possible: even a failure (which happened). Every credible system made by man has failsafe, error-correction, ‘firefighting’, backups, SECONDARY systems etc, type resolutions against problems.
Who is Christ to Adam: he is THE SECOND ADAM. A MAN.
Your error is that almighty God had ‘IN MIND’ a CHRIST… And ‘in the fullness of time’ God ‘BROUGHT FORTH’ a SECOND ADAM because no existing offspring of the first Adam could be found to do the job of the resolution. God created a NEW MAN in the form of the first man…
Jesus said he came forth from God. This is the same as being sent.
A emmisary can ‘Cone forth from the King’ to do a task in a situation. Does this mean the King incubated the emmisay?
Lu, think again… Please.February 14, 2017 at 6:08 am #818667
When I read that God sent His only begotten Son into the world and this only begotten Son was the eternal life that was with God, His Father in the beginning, I understand this only begotten Son as a true Son that was truly an offspring that was eternally alive. How could anyone, including the Father, be eternally alive, exactly, I cannot fathom. I do not have to understand this concept to believe it because I believe it is Biblically taught and also the most logical explanation there is for our creation and existence. I can see in nature the evidence of asexual reproduction which demonstrates how an offspring is equal to the parent in essence yet distinct in number. I know that Jesus and the Father and the Bible teach that He is the Son of God and I believe it in the truest, purest sense possible. You do not. That is your opinion. You believe he is the adopted son of God and you deny that God can even have a son in the truest, purest sense. You offer no logical reason that God cannot have a son in the truest, purest sense of the words ‘son of.’
I assume that you recognize God the Father as having the highest essence of any essence possible. Right? Please answer this question.
I believe that the Son also has this highest essence of any essence possible because I believe He is truly an offspring in the truest and purest sense. Even creation shows us that the essence of the parent is identical to the essence of the offspring in asexual reproduction. Think of asexual cell reproduction for instance. The parent cell, after begetting the offspring cell clearly shows two identical cells in their essence…cells that are one in essence, two in number. I believe that the Father and the Son are one in essence, two in number. You are not addressing that.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.