- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi all,
I much prefer the idea of having a discussion rather than a debate…it just has more of a spirit of seeking truth instead of seeking a winner.I invite BD, and Mikeboll, and Seekingtruth, if interested, to continue our discussion here (from this thread: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=100) about the sonship and single/dual nature of Christ, and what that means, or whatever rabbit trail that comes from there. Please let’s use the Bible (not the qur’an) for reference and also the church fathers or other Christian scholarly Biblical commentaries when helpful to clarify.
This discussion is closed to others so that it can be easier to follow, thanks for understanding.
Yeah, we hijacked Wm's thread, huh?
Okay Kathi, it seems the ball is in your court, as Asana and I have responded to your last posts.
BD,
Here is your last post to me from the other thread:Quote Quote (Lightenup @ May 26 2012,12:17) Hi BD, (Mike let BD respond to this please)
you said:Quote This is metaphorical not literal if a person was born God they cannot die because God cannot die. Actually an offspring is already the kind he or she is before being born, so the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD (John 1:18) was born God because He already was God 'kind' before He was born.
God cannot die and that is one of the reasons that the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD became man, so He could die.
The Bible never calls Adam the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of GOD or the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD. Many are called 'sons of God' and there are a few reasons for that (they were simply created by God, a believing descendant of Abraham, an follower of Christ-son by adoption/born again) but no one else besides Jesus is ever called the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON or the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD. These set Him apart from all other 'sons of God.'
Quote
Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.and
Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?Jesus was begotten before the ages, from Mary, and from the grave. Heb 1:5 either refers to Jesus according to the flesh or from the grave according to the glorified flesh.
What you are saying goes against scripture:
Isaiah 37:16
O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.Mark 12:32
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:1 Corinthians 8:4
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.and most importantly God testifies HIMSELF
Isaiah 45:5
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:The word begotten is used referring to others before Jesus and even when it is used once again it desognates a uniqueness not begetting like humans beget one another.
Jesus was the only human created with a command to “Be” Adam was formed from the earth and then God breathed thebreath of life into him. Jesus was created how God created the foundations of the world such as “Let there be light” So Jesus was nade by the command of God and the word became flesh.
There is never any scripture about begetting a god and God does not become a man, the scripture clearly states God is a Spirit.God does not become “Not God” for that would violate the law of Identity.
I believe that the LORD (YHWH) is the God of gods and the Lord of lords and that represents both the Father and the Son and of course their Spirit. You read LORD as one person and I read LORD as one God who is Father, with Son and their Spirit. YHWH is the name of an always existent person or the unity of the always existent persons, depending on the context. In some contexts YHWH refers to the Father, sometimes to the Son and sometimes to the unity of the Father, Son and their Spirit.
The word 'church' can mean the particular church down the road (ex: the Church of God in Corinth), or the unity of all congregations that form the full body of Christ. Church is a singular term either way. The term 'church' also has singular personal pronouns like 'it' or 'she'. The church consists of many bodies although it is considered one body…get my drift here?
If the name 'YHWH' is like that, then YHWH can mean one person as God or a unity of more than one person as God, depending on the context.
The NT gives us evidence that Jesus is called theos by His followers and the Father Himself. The NT also gives us evidence of Jesus' involvement in creation and being with God in the beginning as God. John 1:1
So, for YHWH to be God alone, creator of heaven and earth as if He were just one in person, then that goes against scriptures. It can't be one in person if the 'Word' that was God was with God, and then that 'Word/Firstborn' was used to create all things.
Ok, Mike, here is your last two posts on that thread:
Quote Quote (Lightenup @ May 25 2012,17:15) Mike,
You say that Jesus was not dual natured. Can you please give me your definition of 'dual natured.'
Thanks!
In other words, “Priest of God Almighty” is not one nature of Jesus while “God Almighty” is another.He WAS a spirit being like the other angels, then he WAS a human being.
While he was a human being, he was not still also a spirit being like the other angels. He was not both at once.
Quote Quote (bodhitharta @ May 25 2012,09:08) The main thing that I keep trying to get across to those who speak about Jesus having a dual nature is that if it were true the scripture would not say: Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Hi Asana,1 Cor 15:28 answers the question once and for all. And even though Kathi has tried to throw a monkey wrench into that scripture by claiming it speaks of the kingdom of the world, and not the Kingdom of Heaven, the end result remains the same: She is claiming that one nature of Jesus is the servant of another nature of Jesus, and that one nature of Jesus will hand the kingdom over to that other nature.
Not only is this nonsensical, but it is totally unsupported by any scripture.
Mike,
You did not give me a definition of what your idea of what a dual nature would be.
I will wait to address the other when you give me your definition. BTW, a priest is not a nature but a position or office. Thanks!That's right, Kathi. So Jesus the Priest can not subject himself to Jesus the God.
I don't have an actual definition of a “dual-natured” being, because I don't believe one has ever existed. When Jesus was of human nature, he was of human nature. When he was of spiritual nature, he was of spiritual nature.
In other words, there has never existed TWO Jesus Christs at one time, or even one Jesus with a “lesser nature” and a “higher nature” at the same time.
Mike, what do you mean, “that's right” as if we are agreeing or something…what's right? You say that you do not have a definition of 'dual nature' then how can you say Jesus is not dual natured? If I say that I do not know what it means to be, say, 'zorbified' how can I say someone is not 'zorbified?'
Typically Christians claim that He is both fully God and fully man at the same time and as one person. You seem to think that is nonsensical. Many Christians call it a mystery. First of all, much of what God has done seems 'nonsensical' or mysterious and that is what is often referred to as 'supernatural.' It is by faith that Christians believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully man at the same time. It is also because scripture shows Jesus limited as a man in one context and supernatural as a God in another, both while existing in the flesh.
If He were merely a man, He could not die for the sins of mankind as per scripture. No man, no matter how righteous could die for the sins of another man. Also if He were merely a man, He could not forgive a mans sins except those sins that were done against him. Jesus forgives men's sins. If He were merely a man, we couldn't believe in Him like we believe in God or that would be idolatry. If He were a mere man who gave us commands to follow then we would be following the precepts of a man and not of God. If He were a mere man, we couldn't do all things in His name or that would also be idolatry.
Even if He were merely an angel He couldn't die for the sins of mankind, forgive the sins of a man who sinned against God or another, give his own commands for all to follow, etc. Jesus never claimed to be an angel…never! He may have taken the role of a messenger which in Greek and Hebrew is the same word as angel, but that was only the role and not the nature. Likewise, some angels took the role of a man for a short time but not the nature of a man. Angels have been called 'men' but that doesn't mean they were.
Therefore, Jesus was not merely human natured, yet He had human nature. He was much more than merely a man and much more than an angel. He was the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, not just A son of God.
You say that there has never existed 'two Jesus Christs at one time' and I never said there has. It is one person called Jesus Christ who both existed before the world began with the Father and came in the flesh as man during time, thousands of years after creation. It was the same person that existed beforehand in one manner and then also began to exist in another manner later on, then died and was raised in yet another manner. This is impossible to fully grasp but we can be given faith by God to accept it anyway because that is what scripture indicates.
For somewhat of an example, a person that was born into a royal family can live without accepting the privileges of being royalty and live like the common pauper but he would still be royalty. His royal blood line is not something that he can stop having. He can be a prince and a pauper at the same time. He can retain the power of royalty while not accepting the privileges of royalty even though he decides to live as a pauper. The people who only know him as a pauper would pay no attention to his commands, but to those who knew his true identity, they would obey his commands.
So, in other words…some here believe that Jesus was just a righteous poor man whose righteousness was a good example. To those who know Him better as deity, they would follow Him, obey Him and serve Him even when He is invisible.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,21:28) Mike, what do you mean, “that's right” as if we are agreeing or something…what's right?
I'm agreeing with you that “priest” is not a nature. Here's what you said in the other thread:Quote (Lightenup @ May 17 2012,21:26) The Mediator reigned until all the powers were destroyed and then the Mediator returned the kingdom that was of darkness, to God, God in His fullest sense…Father with Son and their Spirit.
In that post, it seemed to me as if you were saying that the “Mediator nature” of Jesus returned the Kingdom to the “God nature” of Jesus – a claim with which I disagreed in the other thread.But then, in this thread, you said:
Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,14:51) BTW, a priest is not a nature but a position or office.
This I agree with, which is the reason I said:Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2012,18:27) That's right, Kathi. So Jesus the Priest cannot subject himself to Jesus the God. Kathi, your post is quite long, and contains many unscriptural thoughts. I will hit those parts briefly, hoping to not see a million word post in return. If you object to my disagreements, then we should discuss them one at a time. Here goes:
Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,21:28) You say that you do not have a definition of 'dual nature' then how can you say Jesus is not dual natured? If I say that I do not know what it means to be, say, 'zorbified' how can I say someone is not 'zorbified?'
You are the one claiming a “dual nature” for Jesus Christ. How can I define what YOU mean by that? Is a pekapoo a “dual natured” dog, being 100% Pekinese and 100% Poodle? Were the Nephilim “dual natured” in your eyes, being 100% angel and 100% man? Can we say a man is “dual natured” because he sometimes has a “happy nature” but other times an “angry nature”?YOU'RE the one making the claim, so perhaps YOU should define what you mean by “dual natured”.
Later in your post, you said:
Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,21:28) You say that there has never existed 'two Jesus Christs at one time' and I never said there has. It is one person called Jesus Christ who both existed before the world began with the Father and came in the flesh as man during time, thousands of years after creation. It was the same person that existed beforehand in one manner and then also began to exist in another manner later on, then died and was raised in yet another manner.
This is how I understand it also, but none of that implies that Jesus had two different natures at the same time.Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,21:28) If He were merely a man, He could not die for the sins of mankind as per scripture.
If he were not a man, he would not have been able to die at the hands of men at all. Men cannot kill angels or gods.John 15:13 NET ©
No one has greater love than this – that one lays down his life for his friends.Jesus was a man when he said these words.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,21:28) Also if He were merely a man, He could not forgive a mans sins except those sins that were done against him. Jesus forgives men's sins.
Matthew 9:6
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”Jesus was GIVEN AUTHORITY to forgive sins on earth.
John 20
22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”Jesus passed this same authority on to his disciples.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,21:28) If He were merely a man, we couldn't believe in Him like we believe in God or that would be idolatry.
By placing Jesus on the same pedestal as God, you DO commit idolatry. I believe in Jesus as the savior God sent into the world – not as God Himself coming into the world to be killed at the hands of men. The teaching is that GOD so loved the world that He SENT His Son – not that He Himself came.Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,21:28) If He were a mere man who gave us commands to follow then we would be following the precepts of a man and not of God.
Jesus gave commands with God's authority, just as Moses and Samuel – other prophets of God – did. As Micah 5:4 foretold, Jesus rules in the strength and majesty of the name of his own God. The commands Jesus gave are the commands of his God, as spoken through him – God's spokesman.Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,21:28) If He were a mere man, we couldn't do all things in His name or that would also be idolatry.
Kathi, we pray TO God, THROUGH the name of His Holy Servant, Jesus Christ. Surely you cannot think the Servant is the God he serves?Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,21:28) He was the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, not just A son of God.
I agree that Jesus is A son of God in a way that no others are. Similarly, Issac was the “only begotten” of Abraham while at
the same time being A son of Abraham. But Kathi, how can your mouth even utter the words “Son OF God” while your mind thinks “God Himself”?
Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2012,21:28) To those who know Him better as deity, they would follow Him, obey Him and serve Him even when He is invisible.
I follow him as deity – just not as the Almighty Deity that brought him forth into existence. Jehovah is the God of gods, and Jesus is one of the gods He is the God of.Quote Jesus never claimed to be an angel…never!
Jesus never claimed to be the Almighty God who sent him into the world…never!Kathi, I know this thread is subtitled “Who is Jesus?”, but let's focus on this “dual natured” thing. It seems the conversation in the other thread was about 1 Cor 15, where Jesus is said to hand the Kingdom over to his own God. Let's continue THAT discussion.
Mike,
You want a short reply and to take it bit by bit, ok.you said:
Quote I agree that Jesus is A son of God in a way that no others are. I believe that Jesus is the only son of God in a way that no others are too. He is the same kind of being that His Father is…like begats like. Angels are not the same kind of being. If an true angel did begat after its kind, then that which was begotten would also be a true angel. That should help you see that when a true god begets after His kind, that which was begotten would also be a true god. If there was only one that was begotten after that kind then we would have only one begotten god and only one begetter god.
That is about as simple as I can make that, Mike. Obviously I am not saying the begotten god is also the begetter god. One is Father and one is Son. Both the same kind…god kind.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2012,12:15) If there was only one that was begotten after that kind then we would have only one begotten god and only one begetter god. That is about as simple as I can make that, Mike. Obviously I am not saying the begotten god is also the begetter god. One is Father and one is Son.
Hi Kathi,I agree with your words that I quoted above. If you would leave it as is, you and I would see eye to eye. It is when you add to this understanding your claim that the begotten and the begetter TOGETHER make up our real God that I take issue.
Kathi, do we have but ONE God Almighty? YES or NO?
Mike,
Our ONE God Almighty is both God of gods and Lord of lords.“For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.
1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
Jesus is the Lord of lords.
Rev. 17:14 “These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”
Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2012,12:32) Mike,
Our ONE God Almighty is both God of gods and Lord of lords.
I agree.And it seems we both agree that we have but ONE God Almighty.
Next question:
Does our ONE God Almighty have a Son named Jesus? YES or NO?That is good that we agree on this. Our one God Almighty IS a Father and a Son. Our one God is God of gods AND Lord of lords…a Father AND a Son.
I didn't agree to that, Kathi.
I agreed that God Most High is the God of gods and the Lord of lords. For example, Jesus is a god and a lord, but Jehovah is HIS God and HIS Lord.Subsequently, Jesus is also the Lord of other lords. Even more subsequently, there exist even more lords who are the lord of even lesser lords.
I was editing while you posted, Kathi. Read the rest of what I added.
Also, I await an answer to my second question.
There is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD according to HIS Christ Jesus, that means that even Jesus is not a TRUE GOD. There can be ONLY ONE
Quote (bodhitharta @ May 29 2012,01:21) There is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD according to HIS Christ Jesus, that means that even Jesus is not a TRUE GOD. There can be ONLY ONE
BD,
There is one Lord and that is Jesus. Do you think that means that the Father is not our Lord also? I don't think so. Neither do I think that just because the Bible says that there is one God, the Father, that means that Jesus is not God. In another place Jesus is called God (even Jehovah) by the Father and also by apostles.1 Cor. 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
Jesus tells us that He and the Father are one.
Deuteronomy tells us that Jehovah is the one God who is God of gods and Lord of lords.
Revelations tells us that Jesus is the Lord of lords.
Corinthians tells us that our one Lord is Jesus.
Hebrews quotes the Father showing us that the Son is Jehovah that laid the foundation of the earth and that the heavens are the works of His hands.
Jehovah is a name indicating eternal existence and is given to the Father and the Son and the unity they make.
When the Bible says that Jehovah is one God, that one God is both God of gods and Lord of lords…a unity which contains a Father and a Son. One of the members was sent by the other to become flesh so that His flesh could be sacrificed and blood shed for the remissions of sin for mankind. While He was walking in the flesh, He explained the Father and brought a new covenant to provide salvation to both believing Jews and Gentiles. In His explanation of the Father, He explained that He and the Father were in unity and that He did nothing outside of that unity. His words and actions are in agreement with what the Father would have Him say and do.
Now we have salvation in the name of Jesus. Our hope is not that we will be able to be righteous in our own strength like Jesus but our righteousness comes by being in Jesus. We have that righteousness when we accept Him as our Lord and Savior and walk in that belief.
God bless!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,13:46) I didn't agree to that, Kathi. I agreed that God Most High is the God of gods and the Lord of lords. For example, Jesus is a god and a lord, but Jehovah is HIS God and HIS Lord.Subsequently, Jesus is also the Lord of other lords. Even more subsequently, there exist even more lords who are the lord of even lesser lords.
Mike,
According to the flesh, Jesus was made lower than the angels and we can expect that He would consider the other member of God, the Father, that sent Him to be lower, to be His one true God. Also as a Son, before being made lower, He would consider His Father to be His God within the unity because He is a Son and not the Father. From our perspective, though, both members of the unity are our God. As 1 Corinthians distinguishes them as one God and one Lord even though they are both God or Lord in other contexts. They are the same 'kind' and in that way, the two members are equal. In their position as Father and Son, they are not equal but they are inseparable as a unity. The Father is greater as Father (not as a Son) and the Son is greater as Son (not as a Father).What specifically was your second question?
Quote (Lightenup @ May 30 2012,04:54) Quote (bodhitharta @ May 29 2012,01:21) There is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD according to HIS Christ Jesus, that means that even Jesus is not a TRUE GOD. There can be ONLY ONE
BD,
There is one Lord and that is Jesus. Do you think that means that the Father is not our Lord also? I don't think so. Neither do I think that just because the Bible says that there is one God, the Father, that means that Jesus is not God. In another place Jesus is called God (even Jehovah) by the Father and also by apostles.1 Cor. 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
Jesus tells us that He and the Father are one.
Deuteronomy tells us that Jehovah is the one God who is God of gods and Lord of lords.
Revelations tells us that Jesus is the Lord of lords.
Corinthians tells us that our one Lord is Jesus.
Hebrews quotes the Father showing us that the Son is Jehovah that laid the foundation of the earth and that the heavens are the works of His hands.
Jehovah is a name indicating eternal existence and is given to the Father and the Son and the unity they make.
When the Bible says that Jehovah is one God, that one God is both God of gods and Lord of lords…a unity which contains a Father and a Son. One of the members was sent by the other to become flesh so that His flesh could be sacrificed and blood shed for the remissions of sin for mankind. While He was walking in the flesh, He explained the Father and brought a new covenant to provide salvation to both believing Jews and Gentiles. In His explanation of the Father, He explained that He and the Father were in unity and that He did nothing outside of that unity. His words and actions are in agreement with what the Father would have Him say and do.
Now we have salvation in the name of Jesus. Our hope is not that we will be able to be righteous in our own strength like Jesus but our righteousness comes by being in Jesus. We have that righteousness when we accept Him as our Lord and Savior and walk in that belief.
God bless!
HiThe problem with you statement is Jesus was the One who said that the father was the ONLY TRUE GOD o if you disagree it's not with me it's with Jesus.
Other people were referred to as god even Moses was referred to as a “god” by God.
There is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD and LORD
Quote (Lightenup @ May 30 2012,05:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,13:46) I didn't agree to that, Kathi. I agreed that God Most High is the God of gods and the Lord of lords. For example, Jesus is a god and a lord, but Jehovah is HIS God and HIS Lord.Subsequently, Jesus is also the Lord of other lords. Even more subsequently, there exist even more lords who are the lord of even lesser lords.
Mike,
According to the flesh, Jesus was made lower than the angels and we can expect that He would consider the other member of God, the Father, that sent Him to be lower, to be His one true God. Also as a Son, before being made lower, He would consider His Father to be His God within the unity because He is a Son and not the Father. From our perspective, though, both members of the unity are our God. As 1 Corinthians distinguishes them as one God and one Lord even though they are both God or Lord in other contexts. They are the same 'kind' and in that way, the two members are equal. In their position as Father and Son, they are not equal but they are inseparable as a unity. The Father is greater as Father (not as a Son) and the Son is greater as Son (not as a Father).What specifically was your second question?
You call God a membership? Wow! That's enough for me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
