- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Is 1.18,
AAH,
So Jesus is not REALLY the Son of God?“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”
We are better not to deny the Master.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 13 2007,04:43) Hi Is 1.18,
AAH,
So Jesus is not REALLY the Son of God?“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”
We are better not to deny the Master.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,03:35) BTW, I don't hold that Yahshua is the Son of God is just one exclusive sense. It's abundantly obvious that there is a genuine Father/Son relationship between them. Yahshua calls the Father “My Father” and the Father addresses Yahshua as “My Son”. But when was the begettal? That's the BIG question. I am firmly of the belief that the sonship is linked to the earthly existence of Yahshua (Luke 1:35, Hebrews 1:5) and the resurrection (Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4) somehow. I also find no evidence that would support a pre-incarnation birth. Hi Is 1.18,
You you need to see the begettal beyond Ps 2 to believe what Jesus said, that he is the Son of God?I've given my scripturally-supported view of what it means that Yahshua is the “Son of God”. Can you do the same for me?
Yahshua is the Son of God, what does this mean?
Hi Is 1.18.
Jesus is the unique monogenes Son, solely derived from God as the image of God Himself in the beginning. No other being can make this claim as all other were created by God through the agency of this firstborn being.
Then he came from heaven and was conceived and born of Mary and the Spirit of God as the true Son of Man.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,06:01) Yahshua is the Son of God, what does this mean?
Could it mean exactly what it says? So obvious and plain for all to see. Even unlearned 1 century commoners and children could understand? Something that will confuse the wise and the philosophers yet completely simple to understand for the simple and meek.God had a son.
Quote David, did you write this post? If the answer is yes, then so is mine. If the answer is no, then shame on you for being so deceptive by claiming (by ommision of a reference) that it's your own work. Blatant plagerism is not tolerated in other TMBs, why does this one have such a loose policy on cheats?
You may find a few sentences that are extremely comparable, but “no” as far as I can tell, when you take info from various places and re-write it in your own words, it isn't plagerism. The ideas are taken from the Bible and certain refernces. The words are mine.Would anyone other than Is 1:18 actually like to DISCUSS the topic of this thread? To actually look at the references where these words are found?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 13 2007,06:07) Hi Is 1.18.
Jesus is the unique monogenes Son, solely derived from God
“solely derived from God”, presumably 'in the beginning'…..Where is this written?Quote as the image of God Himself in the beginning. No other being can make this claim as all other were created by God through the agency of this firstborn being.
Then he came from heaven and was conceived and born of Mary and the Spirit of God as the true Son of Man.
Firstborn often refers to preeminence not procreation, that is plainly revealed in scripture. And anyway, all of this could be applicable to the natural (earthly) begettal of Yahshua. Where in scripture would I read about a begettal that happaned before this? Which of the NT writers explains that 'Son of God' means pre-incarnate progeny of God? These are the questions I'm looking for answers to…..Quote (Morning Star @ Jan. 13 2007,06:12) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,06:01) Yahshua is the Son of God, what does this mean?
Could it mean exactly what it says? So obvious and plain for all to see. Even unlearned 1 century commoners and children could understand? Something that will confuse the wise and the philosophers yet completely simple to understand for the simple and meek.God had a son.
Nobody is denying that the God (the Father) has a Son Morningstar. But should we not seek to find the proper scriptural meaning for this title 'Son of God'?….Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,06:24) Quote (Morning Star @ Jan. 13 2007,06:12) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,06:01) Yahshua is the Son of God, what does this mean?
Could it mean exactly what it says? So obvious and plain for all to see. Even unlearned 1 century commoners and children could understand? Something that will confuse the wise and the philosophers yet completely simple to understand for the simple and meek.God had a son.
Nobody is denying that the God (the Father) has a Son Morningstar. But should we not seek to find the proper scriptural meaning for this title 'Son of God'?….
Yes I agree with you.However, to stress my point:
I am sure all the peasents (who couldnt read) opened their bibles (they didn't own) and also tried to find the mystery behind the incomprehensable title Son of God.
Too bad they didn't bother to present a scriptural basis for their understanding….
These are fallible men MS, you do know that right?
Quote (Morning Star @ Jan. 13 2007,06:28) I am sure all the peasents (who couldnt read) opened their bibles (they didn't own) and also tried to find the mystery behind the incomprehensable title Son of God.
Actually I think I have misunderstood your point. I thought you were speaking of the venerable (to you) early church Fathers again….What peasants are you refering to here? And what bearing does this have on my point below:
Quote Nobody is denying that the God (the Father) has a Son Morningstar. But should we not seek to find the proper scriptural meaning for this title 'Son of God'?…. The message of Christ was simple enough for the unlearned who didnt need “root words”, “cross-referencing” and “hermeneutics” to understand.
“Father, who is Jesus”?, says the little boy to his father as he helps his father gather water from the well.
“He is God's son, our promised messiah..” replies the father.
“Just like I am your son?” asks the boy.
“Yes, son.” answers the father as he pats him on the head.
Quote (david @ Jan. 13 2007,06:14) Quote David, did you write this post? If the answer is yes, then so is mine. If the answer is no, then shame on you for being so deceptive by claiming (by ommision of a reference) that it's your own work. Blatant plagerism is not tolerated in other TMBs, why does this one have such a loose policy on cheats?
You may find a few sentences that are extremely comparable, but “no” as far as I can tell, when you take info from various places and re-write it in your own words, it isn't plagerism. The ideas are taken from the Bible and certain refernces. The words are mine.Would anyone other than Is 1:18 actually like to DISCUSS the topic of this thread? To actually look at the references where these words are found?
David….
Why don't you just use a Bible, a concordance and your own 'self concieved' thoughts….wouldn't that be better? I just see so much of what you do here these days as seeding the forum with Watchtower propaganda.PS; here's a tip – the scholarly articles for which you never cite a reference for have starkly different sentence construction, word usage and stylistic elements compared to the posts you write yourself (not to mention the uppercase lettering for your section titles – oops just did). If you “read them and put them in your own words”, you might want to pay more attention to these details…
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,06:20) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 13 2007,06:07) Hi Is 1.18.
Jesus is the unique monogenes Son, solely derived from God
“solely derived from God”, presumably 'in the beginning'…..Where is this written?Quote as the image of God Himself in the beginning. No other being can make this claim as all other were created by God through the agency of this firstborn being.
Then he came from heaven and was conceived and born of Mary and the Spirit of God as the true Son of Man.
Firstborn often refers to preeminence not procreation, that is plainly revealed in scripture. And anyway, all of this could be applicable to the natural (earthly) begettal of Yahshua. Where in scripture would I read about a begettal that happaned before this? Which of the NT writers explains that 'Son of God' means pre-incarnate progeny of God? These are the questions I'm looking for answers to…..
Hi Is 1.18
Ps 2
Monogenes.Quote (Morning Star @ Jan. 13 2007,06:42) The message of Christ was simple enough for the unlearned who didnt need “root words”, “cross-referencing” and “hermeneutics” to understand. “Father, who is Jesus”?, says the little boy to his father as he helps his father gather water from the well.
“He is God's son, our promised messiah..” replies the father.
“Just like I am your son?” asks the boy.
“Yes, son.” answers the father as he pats him on the head.
….and yet you would think YHWH is perfectly capable of illustrating a pre-incarnation begettal in the Bible that would be understood by a child, if that is indeed what He means by “Son of God”….At present I believe it is unbiblical, but am happy to be convince otherwise if there is some solid scriptural support. Bring it forth….Where in scripture would I read about a begettal that happaned before Yahshua's earthly one? Which of the NT writers explains that 'Son of God' means pre-incarnate progeny of God?
Hi Is 1.18,
If Son of God relates to his conception from Mary and God's Spirit then the term is not quite accurate. He is son of God and Mary.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,06:46) Quote (david @ Jan. 13 2007,06:14) Quote David, did you write this post? If the answer is yes, then so is mine. If the answer is no, then shame on you for being so deceptive by claiming (by ommision of a reference) that it's your own work. Blatant plagerism is not tolerated in other TMBs, why does this one have such a loose policy on cheats?
You may find a few sentences that are extremely comparable, but “no” as far as I can tell, when you take info from various places and re-write it in your own words, it isn't plagerism. The ideas are taken from the Bible and certain refernces. The words are mine.Would anyone other than Is 1:18 actually like to DISCUSS the topic of this thread? To actually look at the references where these words are found?
David….
Why don't you just use a Bible, a concordance and your own 'self concieved' thoughts….wouldn't that be better? I just see so much of what you do here these days as seeding the forum with Watchtower propaganda.PS; here's a tip – the scholarly articles for which you never cite a reference for have starkly different sentence construction, word usage and stylistic elements compared to the posts you write yourself (not to mention the uppercase lettering for your section titles – oops just did). If you “read them and put them in your own words”, you might want to pay more attention to these details…
I dont agree with all the watchtower propoganda either.I am not sure David is copying anything.
However, David is just sharing his views.
Is he writing a book?
Is he turning in a homework assignment?
Does he really need to learn information and spend a solid hour writing out the very same information he learned in his own writing style to please you?
This seems to be, in my opinion, your way of playing the role of superior scholar. Using the only most refined and prestigious methods of debate. For surely a man who uses big words and follows the proper etiquette of the scribe must also hold a firmer grasp on truth. Sound right?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 13 2007,06:51) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,06:20) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 13 2007,06:07) Hi Is 1.18.
Jesus is the unique monogenes Son, solely derived from God
“solely derived from God”, presumably 'in the beginning'…..Where is this written?Quote as the image of God Himself in the beginning. No other being can make this claim as all other were created by God through the agency of this firstborn being.
Then he came from heaven and was conceived and born of Mary and the Spirit of God as the true Son of Man.
Firstborn often refers to preeminence not procreation, that is plainly revealed in scripture. And anyway, all of this could be applicable to the natural (earthly) begettal of Yahshua. Where in scripture would I read about a begettal that happaned before this? Which of the NT writers explains that 'Son of God' means pre-incarnate progeny of God? These are the questions I'm looking for answers to…..
Hi Is 1.18
Ps 2
Monogenes.
According to Paul Ps 2:7 was a post resurrection utterance:Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.Moreover, Paul said he was “declared” (From G3725; to mark out or bound [“horizon”], that is, [figuratively] to appoint, decree, specify: – declare, determine, limit, ordain.) the Son of God. Therefore, it is conclusive that He was not in any way birthed by the Father. He became a Son.
Romans 1:4
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.Also, The Father says “this day I have begotten thee” which begs the question – did “days” exist before time was created? Not according to Genesis 1:5.
I don't think Ps 2:7 is any sort of evidence for a pre-incarnation begettal….
Quote (Morning Star @ Jan. 13 2007,06:57) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 13 2007,06:46) Quote (david @ Jan. 13 2007,06:14) Quote David, did you write this post? If the answer is yes, then so is mine. If the answer is no, then shame on you for being so deceptive by claiming (by ommision of a reference) that it's your own work. Blatant plagerism is not tolerated in other TMBs, why does this one have such a loose policy on cheats?
You may find a few sentences that are extremely comparable, but “no” as far as I can tell, when you take info from various places and re-write it in your own words, it isn't plagerism. The ideas are taken from the Bible and certain refernces. The words are mine.Would anyone other than Is 1:18 actually like to DISCUSS the topic of this thread? To actually look at the references where these words are found?
David….
Why don't you just use a Bible, a concordance and your own 'self concieved' thoughts….wouldn't that be better? I just see so much of what you do here these days as seeding the forum with Watchtower propaganda.PS; here's a tip – the scholarly articles for which you never cite a reference for have starkly different sentence construction, word usage and stylistic elements compared to the posts you write yourself (not to mention the uppercase lettering for your section titles – oops just did). If you “read them and put them in your own words”, you might want to pay more attention to these details…
I dont agree with all the watchtower propoganda either.I am not sure David is copying anything.
However, David is just sharing his views.
Is he writing a book?
Is he turning in a homework assignment?
Does he really need to learn information and spend a solid hour writing out the very same information he learned in his own writing style to please you?
This seems to be, in my opinion, your way of playing the role of superior scholar. Using the only most refined and prestigious methods of debate. For surely a man who uses big words and follows the proper etiquette of the scribe must also hold a firmer grasp on truth. Sound right?
MS, David and I have history…..and has admitted to pasting unreferenced material in the past. Nice guy though, we generally get along….just wish I could discuss scripture with him personally, and not the WT scholars….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
