- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem controversial to some religiously bound people. The idea is to do God's will and shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man. This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others. There is no problem testing all doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones).
TO ALL,The excerpt above is taken from paragraph 2 of the Heaven Net home page. I put it here as a reminder of what HN is all about. It says that this site is about “shunning man made traditions” and “sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds with others.” This site is about “testing all doctrines (even so called sacred ones).”
This is why we all come here. We all feel we have a special insight that we must share but that wll not be well received in the traditional church. My view of Christ's Sonship is not the traditional view. I categorically reject the notion that Jesus is the “eternal Son.” The term “eternal Son” is a contradiction within itself. I subscribe to the Incarnational Sonship view which is more in line with the pre-Niceans. This view maintains that Christ was the eternal Word made Son in time for our salvation. The Incarnational Sonship view maintains that if sin had not become the plight of humankind there would have been no need for a son. But sin did enter the world making it necessary for the Word to become the “begotten Son” for our salvation.
But when ever I expound my view to a certain individual here I get beat over the head that is not the common view among Trinitarians. This person needs to review what this site is all about. We all need to review it. I want to be refuted from scripture and not beat over the head with the traditions of men. Persons who post here should know what this site is about and engage accordingly.
Thank You,
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 05 2011,12:12) view maintains that Christ was the eternal Word made Son in time for our salvation.
Tell me how this works, Jack. First, there is no mention in scripture of any “eternal Word” that I'm aware of.Second, is it your understanding that there was ONE God, and because of the sin of mankind, God “separated from Himself”, thereby creating a sort of “offshoot” of God that was needed for the reconciliation of mankind's sin?
Walk me through it, please.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 06 2011,05:42) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 05 2011,12:12) view maintains that Christ was the eternal Word made Son in time for our salvation.
Tell me how this works, Jack. First, there is no mention in scripture of any “eternal Word” that I'm aware of.Second, is it your understanding that there was ONE God, and because of the sin of mankind, God “separated from Himself”, thereby creating a sort of “offshoot” of God that was needed for the reconciliation of mankind's sin?
Walk me through it, please.
peace,
mike
Mike,I have held your hand and walked you through it since you were a wee little guy. I have said “Plural God” and “Plural Unity” to you time and time again. Echad is from yachad meaning “unified one.”
How do you define the term “Word?” If it means rationale as the Hellenists thought, then God was never without Rationale.
So walk us through it Mike. Tell us how there could have been a time in God's existence that He was without Rationale. I will think about your “offshoot” term. It may be correct to say “offshoot” because the scripture does say that Jesus came from the “bosom” (core) of God. The only difference between my view and your view that God literally begat Jesus is that the Greek “logos” suggests the idea of rationale which God could have never have been without.
I do appreciate your engaging me without beating me over the head that I am not in line with the traditional Trinitarian view and for that I sincerely thank you.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 05 2011,15:42)
I have held your hand and walked you through it since you were a wee little guy. I have said “Plural God” and “Plural Unity” to you time and time again. Echad is from yachad meaning “unified one.”
And just look at me now………all grown up! You have truly caused me to learn more about scripture than anyone else, Jack. Your claims of “plural unity” and “plural God” caused me to delve deep into scripture in order to refute those claims. And for that, I thank you.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 05 2011,15:42)
How do you define the term “Word?” If it means rationale as the Hellenists thought, then God was never without Rationale.
I am unaware of any “rationale” beliefs as of yet. But I understand the words “logos” and “rhema” to refer to utterances – just like our English word “word” refers to.I believe in the case of Jesus, he is called “the Word of God” because he is the main spokesman of his God. Just like the King of Abyssinia had a spokesman called “the Word of the King”.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 05 2011,15:42)
So walk us through it Mike. Tell us how there could have been a time in God's existence that He was without Rationale.
There most definitely was a time God was without His spokesman, for we know that at some point, He begot this spokesman, causing him to exist.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 05 2011,15:42)
I will think about your “offshoot” term. It may be correct to say “offshoot” because the scripture does say that Jesus came from the “bosom” (core) of God.
And if Jesus came FROM God, then he couldn't possibly be the God he came from.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 05 2011,15:42)
The only difference between my view and your view that God literally begat Jesus is that the Greek “logos” suggests the idea of rationale which God could have never have been without.
God begat a Son unto Himself. This Son ended up being the main spokesman (Word) of his God. He also ended up being an anointed one OF his God, a prophet OF his God, a Priest OF his God, a servant OF his God, etc.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 05 2011,15:42)
I do appreciate your engaging me without beating me over the head that I am not in line with the traditional Trinitarian view and for that I sincerely thank you.
Actually, I admire the fact that you are capable of coming to your own conclusions of what the scriptures teach. I don't usually agree with those conclusions, but it proves that you are more than a blind man parroting the beliefs of blind guides. I've seen you take flak from both Kathi and Keith about your differences with mainstream Trinitarian theology. But what can you do? If you are intelligent enough to know that “eternally begotten” is nonsensical and a paradox, and your fellow Trini's are NOT intelligent enough to figure this out, then you are eventually going to bump heads with them.Jack, tell me how Jesus came “from the bosom of God”, but has always existed. Tell me how he came FROM God, but IS God.
mike
This is exactly what I was trying to say and trying to figure out with the Logos. So thankyou KJ I will read here, but not comment.
I agree too this site should be about looking for truth, but to me it has become a place divided through childish behaviour, and Im tired of it. Its gone on too long. But people are too scared to say anything because when they push, theyre pushed back harder.
Wanna bet, Shimmer?
You won't be able to constrain yourself, and you know it! 
But that's okay, your views are as welcome and thoughtful as anyone else's.
See? You just proved me right, because as I was composing my post, you were adding a post of your own right after you said you wouldn't comment!
I'm not being mean spirited with you, but making a light-hearted joke. I hope you take it that way.
Yes Mike, I see that. So this is good. Lets all look at truth instead of childishness.
Lets talk about scriptures, not the person. (not even an 'I love you'). Where everyone stands as an individual and no groups forming.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 06 2011,04:12) Quote The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem controversial to some religiously bound people. The idea is to do God's will and shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man. This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others. There is no problem testing all doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones).
TO ALL,The excerpt above is taken from paragraph 2 of the Heaven Net home page. I put it here as a reminder of what HN is all about. It says that this site is about “shunning man made traditions” and “sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds with others.” This site is about “testing all doctrines (even so called sacred ones).”
This is why we all come here. We all feel we have a special insight that we must share but that wll not be well received in the traditional church. My view of Christ's Sonship is not the traditional view. I categorically reject the notion that Jesus is the “eternal Son.” The term “eternal Son” is a contradiction within itself. I subscribe to the Incarnational Sonship view which is more in line with the pre-Niceans. This view maintains that Christ was the eternal Word made Son in time for our salvation. The Incarnational Sonship view maintains that if sin had not become the plight of humankind there would have been no need for a son. But sin did enter the world making it necessary for the Word to become the “begotten Son” for our salvation.
But when ever I expound my view to a certain individual here I get beat over the head that is not the common view among Trinitarians. This person needs to review what this site is all about. We all need to review it. I want to be refuted from scripture and not beat over the head with the traditions of men. Persons who post here should know what this site is about and engage accordingly.
Thank You,
Jack
What about practicing what you preach.When you lose a debate KJ, you stop posting to save face, when you should be humble admit the truth, because that would help those who read here.
You can never go wrong if you acknowledge truth and are humble.
Now how about finishing off the debate I had with you and publicly admit you were wrong, or provide new evidence.
What use apart from pride does leaving without saying anything give?
Kangaroo Jack versus t8 on christ's divinity
The state of this debate is the last post on the following page:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=70Admit your wrong or show me the smoking gun.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 08 2011,16:52) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 06 2011,04:12) Quote The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem controversial to some religiously bound people. The idea is to do God's will and shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man. This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others. There is no problem testing all doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones).
TO ALL,The excerpt above is taken from paragraph 2 of the Heaven Net home page. I put it here as a reminder of what HN is all about. It says that this site is about “shunning man made traditions” and “sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds with others.” This site is about “testing all doctrines (even so called sacred ones).”
This is why we all come here. We all feel we have a special insight that we must share but that wll not be well received in the traditional church. My view of Christ's Sonship is not the traditional view. I categorically reject the notion that Jesus is the “eternal Son.” The term “eternal Son” is a contradiction within itself. I subscribe to the Incarnational Sonship view which is more in line with the pre-Niceans. This view maintains that Christ was the eternal Word made Son in time for our salvation. The Incarnational Sonship view maintains that if sin had not become the plight of humankind there would have been no need for a son. But sin did enter the world making it necessary for the Word to become the “begotten Son” for our salvation.
But when ever I expound my view to a certain individual here I get beat over the head that is not the common view among Trinitarians. This person needs to review what this site is all about. We all need to review it. I want to be refuted from scripture and not beat over the head with the traditions of men. Persons who post here should know what this site is about and engage accordingly.
Thank You,
Jack
What about practicing what you preach.When you lose a debate KJ, you stop posting to save face, when you should be humble admit the truth, because that would help those who read here.
You can never go wrong if you acknowledge truth and are humble.
Now how about finishing off the debate I had with you and publicly admit you were wrong, or provide new evidence.
What use apart from pride does leaving without saying anything give?
Kangaroo Jack versus t8 on christ's divinity
The state of this debate is the last post on the following page:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=70Admit your wrong or show me the smoking gun.
t8,First, what has our former debate to do with this thread?
Second,
At the beginning of the debate I stated that there were no rules. You were the first to stop posting and I didn't whine about it because there were no rules.
Third,
I have admitted to nothing. I stated my reason for bowing out. We kept repeating ourselves. I no longer have the patience for that stuff.
I am done with debating. I need to come and go at my leisure. So think what you want but please stop whining about it! You didn't reply for 7 months and I did not whine about it.
KJ
KJ, you are reminding everyone about what Heaven Net is about, and I am doing the same.
So is it absolutely relevant and remember you brought the subject up, so it should include you as much as you have reminded others of the meaning of the site.It is about an honest search for truth and when you find truth you change to it rather than against it.
This includes admitting when truth shows up your teaching as not aligning with it, and includes admitting when you are stumped.Such actions are a sign of a true and humble heart.
Debating and then not admitting you were wrong, is a sign of pride and in addition to not helping yourself, it also doesn't help others too.
When we can admit we are wrong it shows a great man who is willing to help others as he has been helped.
A true son is led by the Spirit.
The Spirit corrects and convicts us at times while it also confirms us at other times. We shouldn't fight against the Spirit of God.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 08 2011,18:53) At the beginning of the debate I stated that there were no rules. You were the first to stop posting and I didn't whine about it because there were no rules.
I never stopped debating.
And everyone has a pause been posts.
You are confused here.
I never said I have stopped, why assume that I did?The rules of the debate allowed for what you did that is true and I am not saying you broke the rules of the debate.
But you were the one who brought up the purpose of the site and thus it is a bit rich to bring this up and not somehow yourself be subject to your own point.I am applying this to you just as you have reminded others as to what the site is about.
This is where my post is coming from, not from the rules on the debate itself.If you analyse closely what I am saying, I am not against you, rather I am helping you by pointing out a double standard.
It is up to you if you want to receive what I am saying.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Nov. 08 2011,18:53) I have admitted to nothing.
Why let pride hold you back from confessing such things to others?Jack,
You said:Quote But when ever I expound my view to a certain individual here I get beat over the head that is not the common view among Trinitarians. This person needs to review what this site is all about. Maybe you wouldn't be called out on disagreeing with the mainstream trinitarians if you weren't CONSTANTLY classifying yourself as one of the few 'trinitarians' here and everyone else was anti-trinitarian…hmmmm…did you ever think about that? I tried and tried to get you to stop that. Now, maybe you will stop since you know you will be called out on the fact that you disagree with them on a crucial belief.
What you disagree with regarding the mainstream church tenets, I agree with…I agree with mainstream fundamental Christianity that the Son was always a son, even as the Word. The insight that I have brought to this site is that the firstborn of all creation refers to the 'Light' on day one of creation. Also, that one who was born/begotten could easily have existed before being born (we all existed before we were born for about nine months in fact), in this case, He could have existed as long as His Father…eternally.
If I understand you right, you believe that the 'Word' is the second person of three persons that eternally existed. Now did the person called the 'Word' come from the 'first person' or not? Is He the 'Word God' or the Word OF God?
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 09 2011,21:35) If I understand you right, you believe that the 'Word' is the second person of three persons that eternally existed. Now did the person called the 'Word' come from the 'first person' or not? Is He the 'Word God' or the Word OF God?
What a wonderfully simplistic question, Kathi.What say you, Jack? Is Jesus God Himself, or the Word OF God? What do the scriptures say about it?
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 09 2011,21:35) Also, that one who was born/begotten could easily have existed before being born…………. He could have existed as long as His Father…eternally.
Hi Kathi,I'm glad you've begun to use the correct word to illustrate your wish for an eternal Jesus. The word “could” accurately reflects your thought, for as we know, anything could be possible, right? Just like since the word “begotten” always describes the beginning of the existence of a being anywhere else in history, it could also describe exactly what it sounds like it's describing in the case of Jesus, right?
Anyway, your choice of the word “could” shows that you've come a long way from pretending a scripture actually supports your wish of what could have been.
Kudos,
mikeMike,
You said:Quote Just like since the word “begotten” always describes the beginning of the existence of a being anywhere else in history, it could also describe exactly what it sounds like it's describing in the case of Jesus, right? Read this account of Mary and Elizabeth…Elizabeth was in her 'sixth month' and the baby within her was definitely in existence and alive before he was 'begotten.'
Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. 36“And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.…
…57Now the time had come for Elizabeth to give birth, and she gave birth to a son.
That word translated 'to give birth' is from:
gennaó: to beget, to bring forth
Original Word: γεννάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: gennaó
Phonetic Spelling: (ghen-nah'-o)
Short Definition: I beget, bring forth, give birth to
Definition: I beget (of the male), (of the female) I bring forth, give birth to.1080 gennáō – properly, beget (procreate a descendant), produce offspring; (passive) be born, “begotten.”
So you are not correct to say that the word “”begotten” always describes the beginning of the existence of a being anywhere else in history…”
John the Baptist already existed before he was begotten and I believe that the Son of God already existed before He was begotten also. A begettal is not the beginning of existence but the beginning of existing outside of someone as a newborn baby does. The Son came out of the Father and that was His 'begettal,' before day one was named, as I believe, but that was not the beginning of His existence, imo. I believe that He existed eternally within the Father before that begettal. I do not have any reason to not believe this.
Also, 'could' is a good word…you should use it in just about every one of your statements that you make here, i.e. when you say that the word such and such could be translated this way or that and then go on being dogmatic that one way is the only way.
Kathi
Hi Kathi,
What great accomplishments did John succeed at while inside the womb of Elizabeth? Did he pave the way for his Lord while in there? Did he baptize anyone? Was there anything great that he did that could be attributed to John except for “leaping for joy”?
Similarly, what great things did Jesus accomplish from within his Father? Did he save the world from in there? Did he counsel wonderfully? Was anything created through him at that time?
If not, then why is it so important to you that he “existed from eternity” within his Father? What does it matter?
When we think of God existing from eternity, we think of a separate Being, on His own, and of His own accord, doing anything He wanted to do. We cannot apply that same reasoning to anyone who happened to be “living within” God at the same time – so what's the point?
Your argument reminds me of the non-preexisters who say it was “the thought of Jesus in God's mind” that had glory alongside God before the world was. What does that even mean? I wonder the same thing about your argument. What does it mean that Jesus “existed” within the Father? Did he have a mind of his own? How odd.
Did he move by himself? Did he talk to his Father from within the Being of his Father? The whole thing is not only absurd IMO, but also a useless point.Because if you think about it, EVERYTHING was within the Father before the Father willed it into being. The matter that the earth is made of was originally within the Father. Even if the Father just “willed” matter into being, it still came from WITHIN the Father as His will, and therefore existed as long as the Father has existed. So the point you are making about Jesus could be made about EVERY SINGLE THING in existence today. The only difference you could make is if you could show how Jesus said or did something from within the Father before he was begotten. And since that is impossible for you to show, the whole matter is moot.
And finally, everything that was ever created or begotten had a time when it didn't exist as a sentient being. There has never been a son in the history of creation that wasn't also at one time NON-EXISTENT. There is NO scriptural reason to think this also wasn't the case with Jesus.
So, like you said in your last post, it COULD BE that Jesus “existed within the Father” before he was begotten. But it also COULD BE that Jesus now exists in the form of a polka-dotted teddy bear. And it COULD BE that everything in creation also “existed within the Father” before it was brought forth into being.
I guess I'm wondering WHY we're even discussing this. WHY is this important for you? Why is it so important for you to claim “Godship” for Jesus when he is clearly NOT “God Himself”, but the Son OF that One? Why do you try to give the accomplishments and glory of our one and only Creator to His Servant?
Mike,
you wrote:Quote What great accomplishments did John succeed at while inside the womb of Elizabeth? Did he pave the way for his Lord while in there? Did he baptize anyone? Was there anything great that he did that could be attributed to John except for “leaping for joy”? Pointless argument…what great accomplishments did the Father succeed at before He beget the Son??? The main point that I was making is that a 'begettal' is not the beginning of existence but the bringing forth of something that already existed within. If everything created came from within the Father, then everything was begotten and not created. We know that is not so. There is a difference between being created and being begotten. If something/someone was created, they did not exist before they were created. If something/someone was begotten, then they already existed within and the begettal was only bringing forth someone that already existed from a position of 'inside of' to a position of 'out of.'
Quote And finally, everything that was ever created or begotten had a time when it didn't exist as a sentient being. There has never been a son in the history of creation that wasn't also at one time NON-EXISTENT. There is NO scriptural reason to think this also wasn't the case with Jesus. Jesus is an exception though, isn't He, since there has never been a person that was born that existed before they were conceived like the Son of God in Mary…even before creation. You can't put the Son of God in with all the others Mike, He is unique. He has a different story than anyone else. You can't give me one example of a creature who pre-existed their conception. There has never been a son in the history of creation that was also at one time pre-existent as a sentient being before conception except the Son of God. There is no reason to think that Jesus fits the history of all sentient creatures. Therefore what you said in the above quote has no bearing.
Quote So, like you said in your last post, it COULD BE that Jesus “existed within the Father” before he was begotten. Great, we are getting somewhere.
Quote But it also COULD BE that Jesus now exists in the form of a polka-dotted teddy bear. And it COULD BE that everything in creation also “existed within the Father” before it was brought forth into being. Well, now you are being foolish. And regarding everything in creation 'existing within the Father' before it was brought forth into being makes no sense. All things, if they existed within the Father before being brought forth would be considered begotten when brought forth, not created. We know that He has only one begotten Son though, otherwise 'only begotten' doesn't mean anything.
This is a really important concept to grasp Mike…begotten does not mean the beginning of existence but instead implies someone/something already exists and then is brought forth from inside to the outside.
Kathi
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
