Home Bible Doctrine Was Jesus begotten or created? Page 3

Was Jesus begotten or created?

, , Bible Doctrine, , 25,959

 

Jesus is the Word of God

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning…

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld His glory, a glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 

Definition of ‘Created’

“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” 

By this we know the Word was not made as it couldn’t came through him or it if he or it didn’t exist.

Definition of ‘Begotten’

Means fathered. Directly from the Father. Begotten of the Father.

Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee…

Conclusion

Whatever was first had to be begotten in order for all that followed to be created.

Whatever, whoever was first had to come from God’s own nature because there was nothing else but God to be derived from. He is the image of God.

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (of 25,960 total)
1234…1,2961,2971,298
  • Author
    Posts
  • November 8, 2004 at 2:03 am#4445
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi nate,
    The Tribunal of Christ is a judgement but not of condemnation.

    November 8, 2004 at 2:28 am#4446
    Anonymous
    Guest

    agreed

    November 12, 2004 at 9:15 pm#4495
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi,
    Surely the terms “The Logos” and the “Son of God” are interchangeable. Jesus called himself both Son of God and Son of Man. Are those terms interchangeable? I think not as they speak of different times and origins. Jesus used the second term about himself far more frequently than the first. So what does Son of Man tell us? Surely it says that he is of our flesh. He has been conceived of the seed of David and has partaken of our physical earthly origins?

    What then of Son of God? Surely by the same argument it means he was begotten in the beginning of the Father alone? It is interesting that Satan used that term Son of God when testing him and demons also addressed him as Son of God also. When Peter said also Jesus was the Son of God then Jesus knew he had been born from above.

    The little word 'of' contains some important messages.

    November 12, 2004 at 11:59 pm#4500
    NickHassan
    Participant

    ps.
    If The Son of God is the Logos then it gives a new impact to this scripture in 1 John 4.14
    ” We have seen for ourselves and can testify that the Father has sent the Son as saviour of the world. When anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God ,God dwells in him”

    and 1Jn 5.5″ Who,then is the conquereor of the world? The one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God”

    and 1 Jn 5.9″ Do we not accept human testimony? The testimony of God is much greater; it is the testimony God has given on His son's behalf. Whoever believes in the Son of God possesses that testimony in his heart. Whoever does not believe God, has made God a liar by refusing to believe in the testimony He has given on His own son's behalf. The testimony is this :God gave us eternal life and this life is in His Son”

    and 1Jn 5.20″ We know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to recognise the One who is true. And we are in the One who is true for we are in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life”

    The opposite is to say that if we do not recognise and acknowledge the Son of God in all his glory we do not have the Father dwelling in us, we are not conquerors of the world, we call God a liar and we do not have eternal life?

    November 13, 2004 at 10:01 am#4504
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 13 2004,16:15)
    Hi,
    Surely the terms “The Logos” and the “Son of God” are interchangeable. Jesus called himself both Son of God and Son of Man. Are those terms interchangeable?  I think not as they speak of different times and origins. Jesus used the second term about himself far more frequently than the first. So what does Son of Man tell us? Surely it says that he is of our flesh. He has been conceived of the seed of David and has partaken of our physical earthly origins?

    What then of Son of God? Surely by the same argument it means he was begotten in the beginning of the Father alone? It is interesting that Satan used that term Son of God when testing him and demons also addressed him as Son of God also. When Peter said also Jesus was the Son of God then Jesus knew he had been born from above.

    The little word 'of' contains some important messages.


    A good post Nick.

    November 15, 2004 at 6:41 am#4515
    david999
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 21 2004,03:39)
    cont.
    so when Jesus said to the Jews
    “Truly ,truly I say unto you. Before Abraham was born ,I AM”
    he was simply stating the truth, not saying He was the Father but he existed in the beginning with the Father.


    Hello

    I am new to this. I have a question or a statement which has plagued me for some time. My assumption is as follows:

    1.  The God is one and is unbegotten
    2.  The Word is the only begotten.

    My question is: Was there a time when the God (Father) was alone? Thus; Did the Farher “remember” a time when the Son (Logos) did not exist?

    I will explain my feelings on this. God is the source of the Son. He is also unchanging. The Father did not “come up” with the idea of having a Son. My conclusion on this is that the Father is eternal in a sense which the Son is not and yet the Son is eternal and yet contingent. The Father is eternal and not contingent. I call this a conclusion and yet it is tentative. I am a seeker. I am not here to teach or to regale anyone with my profundity or knowledge but rather to learn. I consider myself to be woefully ignorant on the things of God and am not by nature a philosopher. I am open to any help in resolving this tentative “conclusion”.

    November 15, 2004 at 10:29 am#4517
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    To david999

    I think the difficulty with this one is that time itself was most likely created and we know that all creation was made through Christ by God. But I think that in the beginning was God and inside himself there was and is wisdom and truth. But God expressed this wisdom and truth as the Logos so that the Logos was with God as a seperate entity but in unity with him in will and purpose.

    In other words God gave these attributes in himself a will so that he begat an image, the Logos of God the ONLY begotten of the Father and his full expression.

    In some way I think that we too are God's thoughts and we are given life and a will to exist as seperate from God, but in unity of will if we choose. This experience is not only amazing for us as we are given life and then we learn about God forever, whilst praising his holy name. But God too gets to look through the eyes of all his creation and to see how he is perceived by us.

    In this God's love is made perfect that he should bestow upon us the priviledge as being the sons of God.

    The son of God himself is wisdom and truth in person, but God did not loose his truth and wisdom by birthing an image who would be called the Truth and Wisdom.

    As it was written by Tatian (165 A.D):

    For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him

    and

    And by His simple will the Word sprang forth, and the Word, not coming forth in vain, became the firstbegotten work of the Father . Him [the Word] we know to be the Beginning of the world

    Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 175 A.D) said the following:

    God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bosom, begat him, emitting him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by him He made all things.

    Some pearls of wisdom from Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D)

    May He who is alone unbegotten, keep you stedfast both in the spirit and in the flesh, through him who was begotten before time began. (To the Antiochians, XIV).

    I hope this helps?

    November 15, 2004 at 6:21 pm#4521
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Yes t8 and David999,
    Time only started at creation . Before that was “The Beginning” where God existed alone and then begat the only Begotten Son of God. God is love and love needs to express itself. He expressed that love towards His Son and all subsequent creation. That love continues towards all, especially those who are born into His son.

    What does “eternal” mean? Is it a retrospective term? The Word of God says eternal life is in the Son of God [1Jn]So that is talking of the future, not the past?

    November 21, 2004 at 6:17 am#4594
    david999
    Participant

    Quote (david999 @ Nov. 15 2004,06:41)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 21 2004,03:39)
    cont.
    so when Jesus said to the Jews
    “Truly ,truly I say unto you. Before Abraham was born ,I AM”
    he was simply stating the truth, not saying He was the Father but he existed in the beginning with the Father.


    Hello

    I am new to this. I have a question or a statement which has plagued me for some time. My assumption is as follows:

    1.  The God is one and is unbegotten
    2.  The Word is the only begotten.

    My question is: Was there a time when the God (Father) was alone? Thus; Did the Farher “remember” a time when the Son (Logos) did not exist?

    I will explain my feelings on this. God is the source of the Son. He is also unchanging. The Father did not “come up” with the idea of having a Son. My conclusion on this is that the Father is eternal in a sense which the Son is not and yet the Son is eternal and yet contingent. The Father is eternal and not contingent. I call this a conclusion and yet it is tentative. I am a seeker. I am not here to teach or to regale anyone with my profundity or knowledge but rather to learn. I consider myself to be woefully ignorant on the things of God and am not by nature a philosopher. I am open to any help in resolving this tentative “conclusion”.


    Hello Nick??

    Navigating this forum is a little strange to me. I think I am replying to the post that first reponded to me. It was helpful and i am interested in reading some of the writings quoted.

    The problem with modern Christianity is that it threatens the honest seeker with “damnation” and all manner of woes for not subscribing to the orthodoxy( “essentials of the faith”). It is clear that a person who is honest cannot accept what they cannot understand or believe. The Father is revealed by the son who cannot do anything of himself. He is, as you say, the expression of the Father. My problem was and, to some extent, still is that the Father was never expressionless(I think). That “time” was created by God perplexes me and anyone who thinks as any human would. The natural tendency is to imagine a “divine time” in which the Father creates “natural” time. But as you say God knows all and he knows each one of us. His knowing is from eternity and therefore we are from eternity as a thought in the mind of the Eternal. We are not begotten but are the result of the creation which we are told is the work of the Logos. Christ must be differentiated from us and this is accomplished by his being described as the only begotten one. I am still left with no clear definition which explains “begotten” as opposed to created. I am left to “philosophizing” or guessing. The scriptures are not explicit on this and I am guessing that it is to be revealed to the genuine seeker. The Trinity doctrine is a crude attempt to bridge this gap but it ends up contradicting Christ's own words. Christ goes at great lengths to deny that he is the equal of his Father but then, on the other hand, explicitly states that he who has seen him has seen the Father. The son is exactly as the Father would be if He, the Father, could be visible to us. The ineffable becomes comprehensible ONLY through the Son. Communion with the Father is only possible through the mediation of the Son. I understand this as an essential truth. In any case, I am part way there but still a bit perplexed. God is at no time without expression. Christ is His expression towards us. Christ as Logos must be the one whom Elohim implies when He speaks of “in our image” or “Let US make man in our image.

    If, as you say, God created time then the expression “before” begetting is impossible or befuddling. The nature of the Eternal then cannot be understood by us mere humans. The only way He can be understood is by His Logos who is with Him at the begininng and is begotten and not created. This is as far as i can go at this time.

    David999 who is seeking and has been helped by this forum but who can honestly say that he is not there yet.

    David

    November 21, 2004 at 7:06 am#4595
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi David 999,
    the essence of begotten is “produced alone”.No one else was involved. Jesus was the only begotten Son but other sons are mentioned in Gen 6 and Jod 1,2,38 and as The Son of God was involved in creation they were not begotten and neither are we when we are born again.
    We need to forget about time and imagine eternity.We take it for granted as have always had it as a measure in our lives .Time was created for God's purposes and will cease when eternity continues at the end of time.
    The Son reveals the Father because he is filled with the Father's Spirit. But Jesus also has his own nature, personality and will that submits utterly to the Father's will. It is not that he cannot do anything of himself but he chooses to submit to the Father's will “Not my will but thine be done” He is not a robot or shell or puppet.
    Most of what you say is good but don't expect to understand it . We all distill truth and then wait till we can get the understanding from the Spirit.
    “Our image” as you say reflects God and his firstborn Son in the beginning.

    November 21, 2004 at 9:57 am#4596
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    A post regarding time.

    Albert Einstein had some interesting things to say about it. He and other scientists say that time was created when the universe was created. They see time and space as the next dimension and if they are right that could be why we find it hard to imagine. It is difficult for most of us to think beyond 3 dimensions, yet scientists and mathematician say there are many more given the complexity of numbers and laws in the universe.

    I also think that the throne of God is in the highest heaven (or highest dimension) and from there all other dimensions are visible. Just as we can see all of a piece of paper which symbolises 2 dimensional space being viewable from our 3 dimensional space, so it could be that all is visible from the highest heaven.

    But God creates things in the image of. We are created in the image of himself and water is the image of spirit just as  physical light is the image of spirtual light. So maybe time is in the image of eternity. It could be that eternity is linear from a certain perspective but time as we know it is but a moment or point in that eternal realm.

    But if we think about time, it perplexes us that God existed forever in the past. We can easily accept that eternal life is forever. But how do we understand that God existed 1 trillion years ago and 1 trillion years before that an so on forever and ever.

    After a while you start to see how inadequate time is for expressing things, and if we start playing around with speed, we also see that time is not consistent with our understanding of it. Like the hypothetical guy who travelled at the speed of light for 20 years and came back to earth only to find that millenia had passed by.

    My thoughts accept the fragility of how we perceive time. Yet however we view eternity, I still think scripture is clear that the son was born from God and God became a Father at that moment. The word beginning can be used, but time was perhaps created at the moment God created the first thing and we know that all things were created through Christ but that Christ is not created. The way I see this is in the following:

    1 Corinthians 11:3
    Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

    So just as the man existed when the woman did not and Christ existed when Adam did not, so it is that Christ came from God and God is the everlasting one. But Christ was begotten before creation itself, so he was not assembled by physical parts, rather the Logos came from inside God himself. The Logos was the thought of God that he expressed in order for the Logos to exist as his own person. Hence the Logos was with God. This is before the universe so how Christ was with God, is unfathomable to us. But as God begat a son he didn't stop there. Through him he created all things and for him.

    And this is where we are in the picture. We are created with the priviledge of being born again by the Spirit of God, so that even Christ calls us brethren. But we look through a glass dimly especially when we look back.

    For example could you think of the colour green if you were blind from birth? Could you imagine what Mozart sounds like if you were always deaf. How can we who are created, understand what it was like before creation?

    Maybe we will know when we are absent from the body and present with the Lord. Who knows? But I do not say this in order to give up asking or seeking. Certainly not. Keep seeking I say. I know God has revealed to me a lot more than I thought he would of.

    But let's look at a hypothetical situation. Imagine the Internet in 1000 years from now if the end were not nigh and man hadn't destroyed himself. Let's imagine that Search Engines got smarter and eventually this lead to Artificial Intelligence (AI). Imagine if AI became so smart that it could actually think like us and make opinions about things. Let's also forget for a moment that spirit must be breathed in order for something to live.

    So how could this AI invisage real space from cyberspace where it lives. How could it know what a tree was. Well maybe if humans programmed trees (an image) in cyberspace, then it could know. But how could the AI know that it lived entirely in a man-made created world that is made up of computers, satelite connections and computer languages. It sees only what it was programmed to see, but cannot see the makeup of what hold it's world together. But if that AI were given a body when the program expired and was taken up into our dimension to be able to actually walk and interact, it could then see our realm for itself.

    To a degree this will happen to us and it may be possible that all our questions will be answered then. But I would also say to you to never underestimate what you can know now, by revelation of the Spirit of God.

    November 21, 2004 at 7:56 pm#4597
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi David999,
    Heb6.1″ Therefore leaving the elementary teachings about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of
    Repentance from dead works
    And of faith towards God,
    Of instruction about washings
    And laying on of hands
    And the resurrection of the dead
    and eternal judgement.”

    These are the basics of our faith. Denominations and their doctrines do not stick to these basics but wander away into their own imaginations and they oppress people with threats and warnings.

    But they are only able to do that because people have not got rid of that part of their makeup that makes them vulnerable. Guilt. If we all repented and got baptised we would experience the freedom that God's forgiveness brings. A freedom from the weight of guilt and condemnation and we would be like calves freed from the stall, happy, free and thriving in the love of God and no longer susceptible to manipulation by guilt that men use to trap and enslave us.

    December 4, 2004 at 9:09 pm#4749
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi,
    To those who question that Jesus lived with the Father in heaven prior to his human birth. How can you interpret
    John 6 46
    ” Not that anyone has SEEN the Father -ONLY THE ONE WHO IS FROM GOD HAS SEEN THE FATHER”

    No man has seen God
    Jesus is from God
    Jesus has seen God

    December 5, 2004 at 3:49 am#4754
    Ramblinrose
    Participant

    John 6:46
    “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen  the Father.

    Greek Lexicon  
    1) to see with the eyes
    2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know
    3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience
    4) to see, to look to
    4a) to take heed, beware
    4b) to care for, pay heed to
    5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared

    December 5, 2004 at 4:40 am#4758
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Thank you Ramblinrose,
    Welcome back. Yes I am aware of those meanings and Jesus used the perception meaning in Jn 3.3
    “I solemnly assure you, no one can SEE the reign of God unless he is begotten from above”

    Ok so you say it means Jesus “understood” or “knew” the Father? But when it is with “come from God ” it seems an unlikely mixture of meanings?

    December 5, 2004 at 5:04 am#4761
    Ramblinrose
    Participant

    John 6:46  Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God , he hath seen the Father.

    GREEK LEXICON
    2316 yeov theos theh’-os

    1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
    2) the Godhead, trinity
    2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
    2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
    2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
    3) spoken of the only and true God
    3a) refers to the things of God
    3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
    4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
    4a) God’s representative or viceregent
    4a1) of magistrates and judges

    Not that any man hath perceived the Father save he which is God's representative, he hath perceived the Father.

    December 5, 2004 at 5:49 am#4763
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Yes RR,
    It may mean that but I am not convinced that it does.Thanks for the trouble.

    December 8, 2004 at 10:04 am#4824
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Hi,

    I have been very busy lately and haven't been able to give much attention to the latest discussions. But just some thoughts that have been in my mind lately regarding the Logos.

    It appears that most who discuss here in this discussion believe that God is one, namely the Father, YHWH, etc.
    Most here also believe that the Logos is of God and we seem to believe that Jesus Christ (Yehshua, Yashua, Yahshua …) is the messiah of God.

    Where we differ is with the Logos. Some say that the Logos was literally with God in the beginning and God created all things through him and for him (literally). Then he partook of flesh to become a man in order to redeem men back to his God and our God, namely YHWH.

    Others say that God was alone and then he created all things with his son in mind. He alone created all things and not through anybody. He created angels, the heavens and man. Lastly he created Yahshua, (Jesus).

    So the difference lies in what or who the Logos is.

    Now the second group mentioned above are aware that there are many verses that say in plain English that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation. That God made all things through him and for him and that Jesus said that he existed before Abraham and claimed to be the root of David. But they explain all that away by saying that the scriptures were heavily influenced by Greek thinking and the Hebrew way of thinking was kind of snuffed out for most Christians. They take all the so-called pre-existent scriptures and say that they are not literal but fit into a future that was often spoken of in a literal way by the Hebrews.

    My first point that I would like to make is that if the Hebrew way of thinking is the measuring stick, then why did God ignore them for a time and look to the Gentiles. If they were so right in their thinking, then why didn't they recognise that Jesus/Yahshua was the promised messiah? Why did they reject the messiah at the time of their visitation, if their thinking was truth?

    Could it be possible that to take the attitiude that Hebrew thinking is always right and Greek thinking wrong, that it may lead one down the same path and fate as many Jews?

    Moving on I would like to say that both groups believe that God is one. So there appears to be no commandment broken here. But I do wonder about the following 2 verses:

    1 John 4:2
    This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

    2 John 1:7
    Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

    Now I use to read this verse when I was younger and wonder at why such a verse needed to be in the NT. I mean all you would need to say was that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and you would be of God. So Adolph Hitler could have said this and he would be of God. It just seemed to be stupid to my way of seeing things. But now I think I understand just why John wrote this down at least twice. First of all it is not just about saying it as I am sure that we are all aware we say what we beleive. So we must believe it. But I also see it now as a great way to measure a doctrine to see whether it is of the truth or not. It seems that many false doctrines are easily discerned when we apply this acid test.

    So how does this test fit with the discussion of the Logos. Well some here say that the Logos (not Christ) became flesh (Christ) and so it is believed by them that he didn't pre-exist as a person. Others like myself and Nick, say that the Logos was the pre-existent Christ before he partook of the flesh and became the Christ. That the Logos is the expression of God that came from him and was found to be with him in teh beginning. In otherwords he was begotten of God before creation and then God created all things through him and for him. Therefore the words “Let us make man in our image” fit well.

    So how do both stances stack up against John's teaching, that we must:

  • acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh if we are of God.
  • consider that any spirit that says that Jesus didn't partake of the flesh is not of God.

    My point is that both myself and Nick believe that Jesus Christ partook of the flesh. That he being divine in nature took on the nature of man and dwelt among the disciples. But I cannot see how believing that Jesus was first created as a man, that the logos/word/plan that became flesh (supposedly Jesus); partook of the flesh? How can one partake of the flesh if they are the flesh? Perhaps the flesh partook of flesh?This theory that Jesus was created as a man with no pre-existence seems to me to say that Jesus Christ is the flesh as apposed to coming or partaking of the flesh.

    This is the same disagreement that I had with those of the Oneness theology. I argued with them that they deny that Jesus actually has an identity as he is to them the flesh and God union. i.e. that he is the part of God the Father clothed in the flesh. But I somne here are saying the same thing, except that they do not believe as those of teh Oneness persuation do that Jesus is the Father in flesh.

    So how does RR and Adam Pastor see Christ. Is he the flesh itself? Is he a soul? Is he a Spirit? Perhaps you can clear this up for me? I presently cannot comprehend how you recognise Christ as a person outside of the flesh and cannot see how you escape what John wrote in 1 John 4:2.

December 8, 2004 at 6:01 pm#4825
NickHassan
Participant

Hi t8,
I can see some having a problem with those verses in 1 John. Particularly with the little word IN.

Both verses say Jesus came IN the flesh. It does not say AS the flesh or AS flesh but IN the flesh.

To come IN is to say that you EXIST and enter a vessel. If I say I came IN a boat it makes sense but I could not say I came AS a boat.

But if you have accepted a doctrine that flesh and soul are ONE then it is impossible to come IN the flesh because you ARE the flesh. It also makes it impossible to pre-exist as if soul and body are one only as the living being then neither soul or body can have life prior to the creation of that being.
Neither could you accept that Jesus was SENT by the Father as something that cannot pre-exist cannot be SENT. But the NT is full of references about Jesus being SENT.

It all goes back to a false rendering of Genesis 2.7

Man was formed from clay. Man was created as BODY. Man existed as BODY only without life. God blew INTO his nostrils the breath of life. The breath of God entered the vessel of the BODY. The breath of life did not create the man as he was already created. The breath of life did not BECOME the man but gave life to the man who already was created but did not have life.
The breath of God gave soul and spirit to man. When the breath of God leaves the man his body dies but his soul sleeps till the resurrection.The breath of God does not die. Man does not need to be recreated to be resurrected but the new BODY is put over the old natural body and the undying breath of God for natural man.
The new created man in Jesus [2 cor 5.17] has a new Spirit as he has died with Christ. He still has soul [heart, mind and personality]which has been renovated by the internal work of the Spirit and because of the Spirit he is revived in the first resurrection.
Prejudice against Greek influence can close your mind to truth as can any other form of prejudice.

December 8, 2004 at 6:44 pm#4826
WhatIsTrue
Participant

T8,

I have not done much study in this area, (i.e.  the nature of the body, soul, and spirit, and its relation to the concept of the Logos), but having read through some of the discussions I do have some logical observations and questions.

Quote
My first point that I would like to make is that if the Hebrew way of thinking is the measuring stick, then why did God ignore them for a time and look to the Gentiles. If they were so right in their thinking, then why didn't they recognise that Jesus/Yahshua was the promised messiah? Why did they reject the messiah at the time of their visitation, if their thinking was truth?

Could it be possible that to take the attitiude that Hebrew thinking is always right and Greek thinking wrong, that it may lead one down the same path and fate as many Jews?

Such excellent questions deserve some counter-questioning that may shed light:

If Greek thinking was key in discerning the nature and the arrival of the Messiah, why did God withhold such wisdom from His chosen people in their most sacred writings?  Why does the OT issue such strong injunctions against having anything to do with the culture of foreign peoples?  Was God purposely trying to hide the crucial mystery of the Messiah's nature in Greek culture so that the Jews would not to “get it”?

Moreover, wasn't it Greek thinking that turned the one God of the Hebrews into a god of three?  Wasn't it Greek thinking, in the form of gnosticism, that even Paul and the other apostles had to combat during their ministry, even in the very pages of the NT itself?

Speaking of which…

Quote
Moving on I would like to say that both groups believe that God is one. So there appears to be no commandment broken here. But I do wonder about the following 2 verses:

1 John 4:2
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Now I use to read this verse when I was younger and wonder at why such a verse needed to be in the NT. I mean all you would need to say was that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and you would be of God. So Adolph Hitler could have said this and he would be of God. It just seemed to be stupid to my way of seeing things. But now I think I understand just why John wrote this down at least twice. First of all it is not just about saying it as I am sure that we are all aware we say what we beleive. So we must believe it. But I also see it now as a great way to measure a doctrine to see whether it is of the truth or not. It seems that many false doctrines are easily discerned when we apply this acid test.

Note what the two verses do NOT say.  They do not say that the Word, (or the Logos, if you wish to use the Greek) came in the flesh, but that Yeshua the Messiah came in the flesh.  This is important because this is presumably the same writer who penned the John 1 passage that the entire Logos as a seperate being doctrine is built upon.  Here, he has two great opportunities to reiterate that theme, and at the same time, declare it a foundational doctrine.  Yet he simply says that Yeshua came in the flesh, not the Word.

Now this would still be a little confusing, if you are unaware of the doctrinal battle that was going on at the time.  Even in the days of the apostles, Gnostics were hijacking the gospel and giving it a pagan interpretation.  Specifically, they believed that all physical material, including the human body, was evil, and that the only way to escape that evil was through spiritual knowledge.  In any case, they preached that the Messiah had come, but that he was not and could never have been a man, because he would have defiled himself by existing in a physical body.  Instead, they said that he only appeared to be a physical person, but was actually a spirit all along, much like an angel.  The two verses above are intended to rebuke such thinking by declaring in plain language that Yeshua the Messiah was in fact a real man, a fleshly being – the annointed man of God.

Nick,

As I was posting, your post came up, so I will adress your thoughts quickly since I am out of time.

Quote
Man was formed from clay. Man was created as BODY. Man existed as BODY only without life. God blew INTO his nostrils the breath of life. The breath of God entered the vessel of the BODY. The breath of life did not create the man as he was already created. The breath of life did not BECOME the man but gave life to the man who already was created but did not have life.
The breath of God gave soul and spirit to man. When the breath of God leaves the man his body dies but his soul sleeps till the resurrection.The breath of God does not die. Man does not need to be recreated to be resurrected but the new BODY is put over the old natural body and the undying breath of God for natural man.

According to what you have written above the following formula is true:

Man = Body

What then is soul and spirit?  Our divine essence?

  • Author
    Posts
    • Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (of 25,960 total)
    1234…1,2961,2971,298
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

     

    CREATE NEW TOPIC
    POPULAR TOPICS
    ACTIVE TOPICS
    SITE SEARCH
    SUPPORT US
    REGISTER

    Recent Replies

    ALL REPLIES →

    © 1999 - 2025 Heaven Net

    Navigation

    © 1999 - 2025 - Heaven Net

    Log in with your credentials

    or    

    Forgot your details?

    Create Account