- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 13 2007,08:35) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:23) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 13 2007,08:15) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:00) He he…How many sons did God give birth to in the beginning?! Seriously t8, where in scripture does this come from?
Doesn't seem that funny to me.Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
This verse is dealing with the “predestined” believers that will inherit, as adopted sons of God, these are the “many brothers”. It does not speak of Sons that were birthed by God 'in the beginning….
Why do you assume that I was speaking of sons from another age or time?I said “Now Jesus is the firstborn of many sons. We are sons too and we too are born from above. But Christ was the first born and has preeminence in all things.”
I thought it was pretty easy to follow and I didn't even use words like 'ontological'.
Actually, I assumed that your understanding was the same as NH's. He believes that Jesus was one of many “sons” with God in the beginning….but I guess you both disagree about this.Sorry, my presumptious mistake.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 13 2007,08:42) Quote (david @ Jan. 14 2007,03:28) My new rules for speaking to people:
Rule #1: No words like “antidisestablishmentarianism.”So, in view of these terms, some words of advise:
“Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your conversational communications possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations.
Let your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility and veracious vivacity, without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolixity, psittaceous vacuity ventriloquial verbosity, and vaniloquent vapidity. Shun double-entendres, prurient jocosity, and pestiferous profanity, obscurant or apparent!!
Ooh I can see Is 1:18 drooling over that one.What about “floccinaucinihilipilification”?
drool drool
The bigger the better.
As I have seen written on a tee shirt: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull.
Hmm…when David does it it's funny…..but you get too personal.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:39) T8, you are flip flopping… This was your initial assertion:
Quote Actually firstborn is literal and being the literal firstborn comes with privileges. But those privileges can be lost and given to another who is not the literal firstborn. This is the lesson of Jacob and Esau.
Less than half an hour ago it was literal, but now it's conceptual?Be consistent.
I am not flip flopping.As a rule the firstborn is literal. But God can raise anyone up with firstborn privileges because he is sovereign.
Likewise as a rule the children of Abraham are the seed of Abraham, but God is able to make the sand on the seashore the children of Abraham.
I pointed out the rule to you because you seemed to dismiss the literal firstborn rule altogether. I even gave you scriptures to demonstrate this.
I made my point and that was firstborn is literal and can be given to another.
In the case of the Jews, do not forget they are the natural branches and Gentile Christians have been grafted in.
Likewise Jesus is who he is because: “the name he has inherited is superior to any angel.”
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 13 2007,08:47) I am not flip flopping. As a rule the firstborn is literal. But God can raise anyone up with firstborn privileges because he is sovereign.
Likewise as a rule the children of Abraham are the seed of Abraham, but God is able to make the sand on the seashore the children of Abraham.
I pointed out the rule to you because you seemed to dismiss the literal firstborn rule altogether. I even gave you scriptures to demonstrate this.
I made my pint and that was firstborn is literal and can be given to another.
In the case of the Jews, do not forget they are the natural branches and Gentile Christians have been grafted in.
OKAY! Now we're getting somewhere!Is Yahshua the LITERAL firstborn Son, procreated by God 'in the beginning'?
If so, kindly give me scripture that bears this out….
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:43) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 13 2007,08:35) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:23) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 13 2007,08:15) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:00) He he…How many sons did God give birth to in the beginning?! Seriously t8, where in scripture does this come from?
Doesn't seem that funny to me.Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
This verse is dealing with the “predestined” believers that will inherit, as adopted sons of God, these are the “many brothers”. It does not speak of Sons that were birthed by God 'in the beginning….
Why do you assume that I was speaking of sons from another age or time?I said “Now Jesus is the firstborn of many sons. We are sons too and we too are born from above. But Christ was the first born and has preeminence in all things.”
I thought it was pretty easy to follow and I didn't even use words like 'ontological'.
Actually, I assumed that your understanding was the same as NH's. He believes that Jesus was one of many “sons” with God in the beginning….but I guess you both disagree about this.Sorry, my presumptious mistake.
Apology accepted.However I must point this scripture out. But I guess if you are to comment on it it should be done in an appropriate discussion.
Job 38
1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:45) What about “floccinaucinihilipilification”? drool drool
The bigger the better.
As I have seen written on a tee shirt: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull.
[/quote]
Hmm…when David does it it's funny…..but you get too personal.
Probably because you take me more seriously.Quote (t8 @ Jan. 13 2007,09:11) However I must point this scripture out. But I guess if you are to comment on it it should be done in an appropriate discussion. Job 38
1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
What do you want me to comment on specifically? Maybe you could repost it in the appropriate thread with your exegesis, and I'll have something to comment on…..Hi Is 1.18,
It is you who define all gods as part of God and deny there are other spiritual sons. I have no problem knowing other beings of lesser nature, angels and archangels were among the first to be created through the firstborn monogenes son of God in the beginning, and that earth and man were a late development, perhaps designed by God to rid all of heaven and earth of the darkness within. After all the serpent Satan was in business before man and darkness was over the face of the deep.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:55) OKAY! Now we're getting somewhere! Is Yahshua the LITERAL firstborn Son, procreated by God 'in the beginning'?
If so, kindly give me scripture that bears this out….
I don't think I can give you a clear scripture for this if you are looking for one.The closest one maybe this one, but it could be referring to Israel.
Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and the name of his son?
Tell me if you know!Instead I realise that Christ is a mystery and all I have are scriptures to give. I am sure in time the revelation of Jesus Christ will be clearer, but for now we look through a glass darkly and you have to consider this.
Anyway this scripture gives us a clue.
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.So all came THROUGH Christ. God made all things through him. This suggests that he was before all created things. Even angels.
We also know that the Word was with GOD in the beginning. We know that the Word is Jesus and he is the only begotten son of God and the only begotten of the Father.
So looking at many scriptures we know that Jesus is the son of God. That God created all things through him and that there are sons of God or angels in heaven that must have been created by God and through him, suggesting of course that he is older than them.
So I believe these things.
Jesus is the only begotten of the Father.
The firstborn of all creation.
The son of God.
The image of God.
The Word of God.
The agent by which God created all things.If you ask me to define it any closer than that, then I may have to venture outside of scripture and come up with some sort of creed. I could have a good guess, but I wouldn't like to make a definite statement that I couldn't back up.
1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,04:15) What do you want me to comment on specifically? Maybe you could repost it in the appropriate thread with your exegesis, and I'll have something to comment on…..
I don't specifically want a comment but if you did, it would be better to do it in a discussion related to that subject.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,03:22) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 13 2007,02:53) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,00:12) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 13 2007,00:02) Hi Is 1.18,
If God really died then God could not be raised.
According to scripture Yahshua did raise Himself from the dead.John 2:18-20
18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.John 10:17-18
17 “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.
18 ” No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again This commandment I received from My Father.”A claim that was remember and repeated by others:
Matthew 26:61
and said, “This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'”Matthew 27:40
and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”Mark 14:58
“We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'”Mark 15:29
Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,He followed through on this claim.
Hi Isaiah 1:18:These statements by Jesus relative to raising himself from the dead are not easy to understand because we know that He was dead, and so, I understand these statements to be based on the fact that He knew that the life of perfect obedience to the God would justify his resurrection from the dead, and so, through the spirit of holiness he had the authority to raise himself from the dead. When Jesus died, Luke 23 states that Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit”: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Romans 1:4 states about Jesus: “And (he was) declared to the the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:”.
All of the following scriptures show that God raised him from the dead:
Acts 2:32, Acts 4:10, Acts 5:30, Romans 4:24,8:11, 8:34, 10:9, 2 Co. 4:14, Ga 1:1, 1 Th 1:10
God Bless
Hello six digit number,
I'm not sure that this would explain away the explicit claims that Yahshua uttered. He said, in very unambiguous language (first person, singular), that he would raise the “destroyed temple”, and that He had the authority to do it.John 2:18-20
18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”John 10:17-18
17 “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.
18 ” No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again This commandment I received from My Father.”Thanks for the input though.
Hi Isaiah 1:18:And so, how do you explain the statements that Jesus made in light of all the scriptures that say that God raised him from the dead.
Just to quote one: “And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies trough his Spirit, who lives in you”. (Rom. 8:11)
I have given you my understanding which I am always happy to do. I know that my understanding can be wrong, and if i is I want to be corrected, and so, I would like your understanding of this.
Thank you and God Bless
WJ,
“No offence. But first of all I resent the implication that I follow a mans teaching on this”.
I'm sorry if you took my statement to be personal. “Most” Christians follow their clergy. Surely this is a true statement just as all denominations have lies covered with truth.
What you believe is up to the Holy Spirit and you.
But let me say that I have found that those who are ready to confess their “years of experience” are the hardest ones to accept truth that goes against their way of thinking.
Seems that even though the Spirit has shown you the truth about the Trinity doctrine you refuse to completely let it go. Instead you twist the doctrine by accepting some truth that the Father is the head and has authority over His Son. This is exactly what the daughters of the harlot have done and is why their are so many daughters. Their is a daughter to accommodate just about every fleshly belief, as I said lies covered with SOME truth. Is this not your belief You believe in the Harlot's doctrine but yet cover it with truth that the three are NOT equal.
I have no intentions of trying to change your mind, no human can do that. As I said this is up to the Holy Spirit and you.
1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man thinketh that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise.
If you love your neighbour as yourself then you do well.
Quote WJ, “No offence. But first of all I resent the implication that I follow a mans teaching on this”.
I'm sorry if you took my statement to be personal. “Most” Christians follow their clergy. Surely this is a true statement just as all denominations have lies covered with truth.
What you believe is up to the Holy Spirit and you.
But let me say that I have found that those who are ready to confess their “years of experience” are the hardest ones to accept truth that goes against their way of thinking.
Seems that even though the Spirit has shown you the truth about the Trinity doctrine you refuse to completely let it go. Instead you twist the doctrine by accepting some truth that the Father is the head and has authority over His Son. This is exactly what the daughters of the harlot have done and is why their are so many daughters. Their is a daughter to accommodate just about every fleshly belief, as I said lies covered with SOME truth. Is this not your belief You believe in the Harlot's doctrine but yet cover it with truth that the three are NOT equal.
I have no intentions of trying to change your mind, no human can do that. As I said this is up to the Holy Spirit and you.
1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man thinketh that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise.
If you love your neighbour as yourself then you do well.
kenrch
Rather than address the scriptures I give you, you fall into the same logic that all others do!
Just say you are right and I am wrong. And that makes you right!
And of course while we are at it lets sling a little mud and condescend saying…
Quote Seems that even though the Spirit has shown you the truth about the Trinity doctrine you refuse to completely let it go. Instead you twist the doctrine by accepting some truth that the Father is the head and has authority over His Son. This is exactly what the daughters of the harlot have done and is why their are so many daughters. Their is a daughter to accommodate just about every fleshly belief, as I said lies covered with SOME truth. Is this not your belief You believe in the Harlot's doctrine but yet cover it with truth that the three are NOT equal.
That of course is your opinion and not the scriptural view.In fact I dont see a scripture in your accusation above! Have you been hanging around NH and t8.
You know nothing about me accept what you have percieved as my view of the scriptures in light of the trinity, and you pass judgment on my relationship with the Lord!
Is this a common practice among Arian followers?
Then after you make all the accussations you say…
Quote If you love your neighbour as yourself then you do well. Which is a contradiction of what you just said!
Hi kenrch,
When the spirit of God pricks a man he will usually turn and search for someone to blame for the discomfort. He will usually kick against the goad and say he has been personally attacked or you have spoken cruelly and this is natural to divert from the pain. I see nothing harmful but only a wise warning in what you have written.Quote It goes without saying that a Father is the source of the son. Some argue that the son is in fact not OF God but is ACTUALLY God. t8
Looks like you need to study the ontology of God and humanity!
Father has Son.
Father and Son is human!
Father God has Son!
Father and Son is God!
A litlle child can understand this!
Quote Hi kenrch,
When the spirit of God pricks a man he will usually turn and search for someone to blame for the discomfort. He will usually kick against the goad and say he has been personally attacked or you have spoken cruelly and this is natural to divert from the pain. I see nothing harmful but only a wise warning in what you have written.NH
Would I do better to tell him he is lost and blind and follows a dead mans theology?
You see I dont make that judgement. God does, for he knows the hearts!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 13 2007,18:26) Quote It goes without saying that a Father is the source of the son. Some argue that the son is in fact not OF God but is ACTUALLY God. t8
Looks like you need to study the ontology of God and humanity!
Father has Son.
Father and Son is human!
Father God has Son!
Father and Son is God!
A litlle child can understand this!
Hi W,
Ontology is one of the human tools used by rebellious theologians to try to encompass God in the puny thoughts of men. We should not follow those walking towards a pit but rather learn from Jesus and follow him. He is the Son of God, and not his own father.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 13 2007,09:29) Hi Is 1.18,
It is you who define all gods as part of God and deny there are other spiritual sons. I have no problem knowing other beings of lesser nature, angels and archangels were among the first to be created through the firstborn monogenes son of God in the beginning, and that earth and man were a late development, perhaps designed by God to rid all of heaven and earth of the darkness within. After all the serpent Satan was in business before man and darkness was over the face of the deep.
Q1. Were the “spiritual sons” begotten or created?Q2. Was The Logos begotten or created?
Q3. Was Yahshua involved in the Creation of all the other “gods” (including Satan) and “spiritual sons”?
Hi Is 1.18
Created
Begotten
YesIf you know Yashua was a son in the beginning, before all things, then what do you say about how he became a son?
Thanks for answering….
So….as they were not birthed by the Father, the “spiritual sons” are in no respect 'brothers' of Yahshua. They are simply part of His creation. In other words they are, for all intents and purposes, angels (created “hosts of heaven”). The “gods” too are simply part of creation, Yahshua's creation. 1 Cor 8:5 should be read with this perspective. Yahshua is not “one of the many gods”, He is the CREATOR of them…..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
