- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
If the basis of your faith is the trinity doctrine then all else, including scripture, will be shaped to fit that foundation.Since it is the most popular orthodox belief worldwide there will be no shortage of willing helpers working with you to plaster over the cracks and bolster the sagging walls. But it will fall and it is hoped not too many will fall with that house not built by God.
That is why we are told to dig deep and place our foundation on the rock of the Word of God. Such buildings will not fall or fail you in need.
” Unless the Lord builds the house, they labour in vain that build it” Ps 127.1
malcolm wrote:[/quote]
Quote Quote Why must we apply the finite human limitation that sons proceed their fathers to an infinite God.Why must we apply the finite human limitation that sons proceed their fathers to an infinite God. Okay so we don't want to limit GOD
Quote You cannot have a beginning before time. If you exist outside of time, you are, by default, a time-less being. The Logos created all things – space, matter and time. The universe is a continuum of these three things, and all three are irrevocably interlinked, i.e. no one of which can have a meaningful existence without the other two (Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity). We cannot limit anything here – but Einstein can?
Malcolm, does Einstein's theory limit God when He was infact the Creator of time and exists outside of our time domain?How?
Quote Quote Even if there was an eternal begettal recorded in scripture, it stands to reason that both the begettor and begetee would have exactly the same ontology. Its illogical to think that being would beget a something of lesser nature of being. Kind begets like kind. Logic must apply?
Is it better to be illogical about it? Logic is God-given, and furthermore the English word 'logic' is a derivative of Greek word 'Logos'. Yahshua showed mastery in applying logic in some of His exchanges with the Pharisees and Saducees – so if its good enough for Him…..Quote Quote Oh, I was under the impression that nothing was impossible with God (Luke 1:37)? That's an argument for another day Discussion – its called a discussion board or forum, so nothing is impossible with Him – agreed.
\
I don't think the word 'argument' necessarily carries a negative connotation. Its possible to extend an argument (i.e build a case) for a premise without denigrating anyone, or even being confrontational….Quote Is Jesus our older brother?
He calls us his brethren according to the gospel and according to Paul. (Heb 2:11)
We are called sons of God, he is the son of God.
How are we his brothers? Is God our Father?
Do we have eternal life?
Are we redeemed?
What king of life does a son of God have?
1. Is Yahshua my brother? Yes, but that doesn't make us ontological contempories. Is He also my God, like Thomas? Yes. Are you an Alpha and Omega, Like Yashshua? (Rev 1:17, Rev 2:8)?, Are you capable of creating “all things” and then upholding it by the word of your power? (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3). Are you an exact representation of The Father's essence? (Heb 1:3)….I could go on.2. Are we called THE Son of God? No, I don't believe so. There is a big difference. We are creation, sons by adoption. The Logos is our Creator, and according to the Bible has no recorded beginning. He was “declared Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead…” (Rom 1:4).
3. It's interesting to me that Yahshua said He would ascent to “My God” and “your God”, but He did not say 'OUR' God (Joh 20:17). I think that's significant. BTW, when Yahshua died and rose again he remains a man perpetually…..
4. Yes. Who is the eternal life? (1 Joh 1:2)
5. Yes.
6. “King of life”? Not sure what you mean by this. Maybe you meant 'kind' of life? He has life in himself (Joh 1:4). An emphatic assertion that Jesus was the very source of life, the life-giver. This verse is not a reference to the fact that He was alive (had life), but that eternal life was intrinsically His to give. John’s uses the Greek word “zoe” (life) 37 times in total, 17 times it occurs with “aionios” (eternal), and in the remaining occurrences outside the Prologue it is contextually apparent that ‘eternal’ life is intended. The two uses in John 1:4, if they do not refer to ‘eternal’ life, would be the only exceptions. And as ive already mentions Yahshua is describesd a “eternal life” in 1 Joh 1:2.
Im enjoying this dialogue with you Malcolm, I hope you are too…..and that you aren't taking offense to my sometimes blunt comments. cheers.
Quote (TJStarfire @ May 06 2006,14:47) Quote You cannot have a beginning before time. If you exist outside of time, you are, by default, a time-less being. The Logos created all things – space, matter and time. The universe is a continuum of these three things, and all three are irrevocably interlinked, i.e. no one of which can have a meaningful existence without the other two (Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity). What do the theories of man have to do with laws of GOD?
Do you really think that Einstein knew more about the laws of connectivity in this universe
than GOD does?
Hi TJStarfire,
No I don't think he did. But so what? I don't see anything in the Bible that is in direct conflict with Einstein's general theory of Relativity. If you do, can you point me to a verse please?It's important to bear in mind that Einstein's theory is empirically testable, and has been scrutinised for decades using sound scientific methodology. It has objectively withstood the examinations and that is why it has been very widely accepted. Should we question the validity of Newton's theory on gravity too because you suspect it contradicts a “Law of God”? Drop an apple and see what happans.
Hi NH,
Quote God was outside of time when he created it through the Logos who was with Him. Just because the Logos is before time does not state he had no beginning.
How can you have a “beginning” if time is not in existence?Quote All sons have a beginning
All human sons have a beginning. Incidentally, all human fathers do too….does the Father also have a beginning? Using your logic He would have to…..Quote and are, by definition as Malcolm has said, not always contemporaneous with their fathers.
All sons that I'm aware of are ontologically contemporaneous with their fathers, that's the important part. Do you know of a 'kind' that begets offspring with different ontology? A bacteria begets another bacteria, A tree begets a tree, A bird begets an egg that hatches to produce a bird, a cat begets a cat, a human begets a human……Hi NH,
Quote I am not disagreeing with you though Archangels or Princes may be more accurate.
So if these “princes” and “archangels” in Jb 1,2 38, Gen 6 (although they aren't designated with these titles) are clearly angels, created beings, they can in no way be “sons” in the same respect the Yahshua is. Do you agree?Quote But where is it written [as you have demanded of the sonship of the Logos to God]?
I don't know if I have “demanded” an answer. I will do some work for you on your question tonight. In the meantime, do you agree that those described as leaving their domain in Jude 6 are the same as those in Genesis 6:2?Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 07 2006,06:09) Hi NH, Quote I am not disagreeing with you though Archangels or Princes may be more accurate.
So if these “princes” and “archangels” in Jb 1,2 38, Gen 6 (although they aren't designated with these titles) are clearly angels, created beings, they can in no way be “sons” in the same respect the Yahshua is. Do you agree?Quote But where is it written [as you have demanded of the sonship of the Logos to God]?
I don't know if I have “demanded” an answer. I will do some work for you on your question tonight. In the meantime, do you agree that those described as leaving their domain in Jude 6 are the same as those in Genesis 6:2?
Hi Is i.18,
Michael is called a prince in Daniel [and there are other princes], and an archangel elsewhere. Since the other sons of God in Genesis are known to be angelic from the punishment angels are said to have suffered for such misdemeanours [2Peter 2.4, Heb 2.3 and as you say Jude 6] then it seems likely that the three terms are interchangeable.[and I wonder about the elders shown in Revelation] The nature of archangels is not divine but is greater than human.Jesus, the firstborn Son of God was always higher than the angels, being involved in their creation, till he humbled himself and came as man, thus “for a little time lower than the angels”Heb 2.9.
Below only God Himself he is in a divine class of his own and has always had a glory of his own-excluding his time on earth when it was shed-and now his glory is higher yet because God has honoured his obedient service.
Enoch is full of detail on these matters but is not discussed in these forums because it is not accepted in the canon.[unfortunately in my view]
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 07 2006,05:47) Hi NH, Quote God was outside of time when he created it through the Logos who was with Him. Just because the Logos is before time does not state he had no beginning.
How can you have a “beginning” if time is not in existence?Quote All sons have a beginning
All human sons have a beginning. Incidentally, all human fathers do too….does the Father also have a beginning? Using your logic He would have to…..Quote and are, by definition as Malcolm has said, not always contemporaneous with their fathers.
All sons that I'm aware of are ontologically contemporaneous with their fathers, that's the important part. Do you know of a 'kind' that begets offspring with different ontology? A bacteria begets another bacteria, A tree begets a tree, A bird begets an egg that hatches to produce a bird, a cat begets a cat, a human begets a human……
Hi Is 1.18,
Time is an artificial construct added by God into eternity for His own reasons, possibly because His plan has a time frame with time limits to that plan.Men love time because they love measuring things.It gives them a sense of control, when really they have very little in a creation managed by an all powerful God.
God, living in eternity, never needed time for Himself.
Neither does He have to give us any indication when he begat a son. All He has allowed us to know is that it was before Genesis. We cannot grasp any more than that anyway.
Only material things and beings apart from God have a beginning and an end. He was before everything having brought all else, including His Son and through him all else into life.
Just because God begat another god, the Word to be with Him does not exactly define the nature of that son. We cannot compare human biology or plant or even cell division. We simply do not know detail. But we do know he is the exact image of God. But what image has all the detail and dimensions of that which it reflects or images?
We just can't be dogmatic about what is not revealed.
Hi Is 1.18,
Jesus calls us his brothers in Hebrews.
Thomas indeed recognised both the Son, hiis Lord, and the glorious contents of that golden vessel, the Spirit of God
“for God was in him reconciling the world to Himself”2Cor 5
and Jesus had told them when they saw him they saw the Father.
Thomas was a bright student.
Jesus certainly showed us how to pray to God, whom he told the Jews was his Father[ John 8.54]
He told his brothers to pray to “OUR FATHER” [Matt 6.9]
John 1.3 speaks of the Word of life, Jesus Christ who was with the Father as “the eternal life”. Indeed in 1 Jn 5 we are told that eternal life is in the Son. 'Eternal' is not a retrospective term, unless so specifed, but speaks of the time period under discussion-from the begettal unto forever.In Rev 1.17 and in Rev 2.8 Jesus did not say he was the alpha and omega[A and Z]
Instead he said he was the first and the last. God does not speak of Himself in that creation framework but the Son does. He is the firstborn in everything and was before all things and will be after all things. So, under God he is first and last.
'Alpha and Omega', 'aleph and tau', 'first and last', 'beginning and end'. These are synonyms, they all denote the same thing. In Jewish thinking, a reference to the first and last letters of an alphabet was regarded as including all the intermediate letters, and thus represents totality or entirety.
REVELATION 22:12-13
12″Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13″I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”In the OT, YHWH is assigned these titles:
Isaiah 44:6
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.Isaiah 48:12
Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.Are there two beginnings and ends?
Hi Is 1.18,
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Jesus Christ is the first and last in relationship to creation. The Father is before Him.Revelation is the Word of God through the Son opf God through the angel and through John to us. [Rev 1.1f]. It is a complex book.
At times during it we see quotes
From God Himself [eg Rev 1.8]
From Christ [eg Rev 2.8]
From the angel [eg Rev 22.8]
From John [eg Rev 1.4]
and various others such as angels and the elder in rev 7.13In Rev 22.13 it is not clear to me if the quote is from Jesus or a repeat of the statement made by God in Rev 21.5
Quote We just can't be dogmatic about what is not revealed.
With all due respect NH, aren't you being “dogmatic about what is not revealed” by asserting that the Logos had a beginning, when there is no biblical evidence for this? I do have some scriptural evidence attesting to his eternality (Micah 5:2 cf. Psalm 93:2 and Isaiah 63:16, Hebrews 7:3, Joh 1:1a). Also, you can't be the Creator of time AND have a beginning in it, can you?Hi NH,
Quote In Rev 22.13 it is not clear to me if the quote is from Jesus or a repeat of the statement made by God in Rev 21.5 REVELATION 22:12-13
12″Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13″I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”It's my understanding that this can only refer to Yahshua, because multiple times in NT scripture we are told that Yahshua is coming, and we are warned to expect him. No where in the NT does it say that The Father is coming…
Also, in Revelation 2:8 this is said of the “first and last”:
Revelation 2:8
And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;This cannot possibly apply to anyone but Yahshua.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 07 2006,08:04) Michael is called a prince in Daniel [and there are other princes], and an archangel elsewhere. Since the other sons of God in Genesis are known to be angelic from the punishment angels are said to have suffered for such misdemeanours [2Peter 2.4, Heb 2.3 and as you say Jude 6] then it seems likely that the three terms are interchangeable.[and I wonder about the elders shown in Revelation] The nature of archangels is not divine but is greater than human. Jesus, the firstborn Son of God was always higher than the angels, being involved in their creation, till he humbled himself and came as man, thus “for a little time lower than the angels”Heb 2.9.
Okay, I understand you now – and I agree with you; “sons of God” (Heb: bene elohim) and “angels” are interchangable. For a while there I thought you were proposing that The Father begat a large number of progeny 'in the beginning'. And that The Logos had brothers!Glad we're on the same wavelength on this one.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 07 2006,09:29) Quote We just can't be dogmatic about what is not revealed.
With all due respect NH, aren't you being “dogmatic about what is not revealed” by asserting that the Logos had a beginning, when there is no biblical evidence for this? I do have some scriptural evidence attesting to his eternality (Micah 5:2 cf. Psalm 93:2 and Isaiah 63:16, Hebrews 7:3, Joh 1:1a). Also, you can't be the Creator of time AND have a beginning in it, can you?
Hi Is 1.18
Micah 5.2 re Christ
” …His goings forth are from long ago, from days of eternity”
Ps 93.2
“Your throne is established from of old. You are from everlasting.”
These are simply equivalent to saying he is “from the beginning”, that epoch without time and says nothing about his origin or lack thereof.
Is 63.16
“…You O Lord{YHWH}are our Father, our redeemer from of old is your name.”
This is of the Father, not Jesus.
Heb 7.3
” Without father or mother, without geneology, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest forever”Scripture is a record of events, but not all events are recorded. The birth and geneology of the real man Melchizedek is not recorded. He was conceived and born, lived and died and was as normal as you and I.
But scripture uses the fact that he has no recorded parentage to say scripturally he had no human parents. This is to make the comparison with the Son of God.
The Son of God also has no human parents. He did when he became Son of man. The Son of God was begotten from God alone in the beginning. That is the imagery that scripture used to make this clear in my view.
Jn 1.1″ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”
The fact is it only says he was with God in the beginning. That we both know and it changes nothing.Hi Is 1.18,
The Son of God [Word] was not begotten 'in time' but before time -in the beginning. Thus it is quite appropriate that he would be involved in the creation of time. He was involved in the creation of all things.Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 07 2006,09:47) Also, in Revelation 2:8 this is said of the “first and last”: Revelation 2:8
And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;This cannot possibly apply to anyone but Yahshua.
Absolutely right.Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 07 2006,09:37) Hi NH, Quote In Rev 22.13 it is not clear to me if the quote is from Jesus or a repeat of the statement made by God in Rev 21.5 REVELATION 22:12-13
12″Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13″I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”It's my understanding that this can only refer to Yahshua, because multiple times in NT scripture we are told that Yahshua is coming, and we are warned to expect him. No where in the NT does it say that The Father is coming…
Hi Is 1.18,
But it does in Zech 14.3. So it should as the power of the Son is the Father within him as Spirit and not his own.They are forever bound together as one.Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 07 2006,09:29) Quote We just can't be dogmatic about what is not revealed.
With all due respect NH, aren't you being “dogmatic about what is not revealed” by asserting that the Logos had a beginning, when there is no biblical evidence for this? I do have some scriptural evidence attesting to his eternality (Micah 5:2 cf. Psalm 93:2 and Isaiah 63:16, Hebrews 7:3, Joh 1:1a). Also, you can't be the Creator of time AND have a beginning in it, can you?
Hi Is 1.18,
If you do not believe Son means Son then it is likely you will not see evidence of when he became a son, and the Father became a father.
I Jn 4.9
“…God sent his only begotten Son into the world..”Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 07 2006,10:48) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 07 2006,09:37) Hi NH, Quote In Rev 22.13 it is not clear to me if the quote is from Jesus or a repeat of the statement made by God in Rev 21.5 REVELATION 22:12-13
12″Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13″I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”It's my understanding that this can only refer to Yahshua, because multiple times in NT scripture we are told that Yahshua is coming, and we are warned to expect him. No where in the NT does it say that The Father is coming…
Hi Is 1.18,
But it does in Zech 14.3. So it should as the power of the Son is the Father within him as Spirit and not his own.They are forever bound together as one.
I have to respectfully disagree. The NT is explicit in revealing that it is Yahshua Who will return and wage battle, Rev 19:11-16 and 1 Thessalonians 3:13 are two of the clearest passages. So, unmistakably it is Yahshua Who is described in Zech 14:3. He ascended from the Mt. of Olives and will return “in just the same way” (Acts 1:10).ZECHARIAH 14
1Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.ACTS 1:9-12
9And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”when they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.If it's justifiable for Yahshua to bear the name YHWH simply because He has the Holy Spirit then, on the basis of that argument, it would be equally valid for any spirit-filled christian to be addressed or described with this name. Obviously this would be absurd, not to mention blasphemy of the highest order!! And, not surprisingly, no man (other than Yahshua) is EVER designated this way in scripture. This is also why I reject your explanation for the Thomas declaration. Simply being a vessel for the Spirit of God does not mean you can legitimately be addressed as “God”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
